Indian Air Force News & Discussions

[Capt.Popeye]

I have some doubts on that, we basically increase the capability, but not the numbers! MTA will be clearly more capable than the AN 32 it will replace, but therefor we will order also way less numbers. C17 will be more capable than the IL 76, but we will remain with similar numbers as well, while imo not the higher capability would be important, but higher numbers. IAF has not the need to carry huge payloads to strategic distances (US, or Europe to Afghanistan for example) and so far I never saw that the range, or the payload capability of the IL 76 was a problem for them. So a smaller aircraft then the C17, with similar capabilities (latest avionics, reliable quality of systems, no spare problems, short take off and landing), but in higher numbers would have been the better choice for our needs, then IAF would be a more efficient air power.

I'll try to KISS (Keep It Short and Simple) the topic. The new aircraft will bring increased efficiency. How??
The new generation aircraft have greater utilisation factors, better serviceability, reduced turnaround time and much better use of existing facilities, which you might be willing to concede.
The planned induction (in the near term) is intended to supplement , not replace existing assets. Nobody can afford to do that.
However the longer term picture will be different; as the older assets age out of service, supplementary acquisition will take place--THESE ARE NOT THE FINAL NUMBERS. In the meantime the first batches will have been successfully integrated in to the system. That is the road-map into the future.

Specifically about the C-17, it is a "well proven and matured design" (like the C-130). There is no substitute for it. Any others that you may care to suggest do not (as yet) possess those attributes.
And in the future, the IAF will not need (sic) to fly men and material within the country. A longer reach will be required, that will scarcely be the time for the IAF to scramble about to try and cobble together that capability.
(n.b.. read up about "Op Cactus", esp the air-lift aspects)

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Why is Indian military using Intel process, unless i386 and i486 means something else, the Indian military is using obsolete Intel processors in the military?

Nope that is something else.

 

[sancho]

Il-76MD-90A which the Russians were bidding in the competition is only advanced aircraft in that payload category.I do agree with you on higher numbers of transport aircraft and comparatively smaller payload.I really hope more than 45 MTA's are acquired in the near future and if possible even the Il-76 MD-90A's and Il-112's.

Are we also buying Alenia C-27J Spartans?

They also added modernised engines and avionics, but the main disadvantage remains the width of the cargo hold, because that is the limiting factor.
C27Js are under evaluation for BSF, and CG, but with the similarities of spares to C130Js, they could be a logical addition as a fast replacement of some of the older Hawker aircrafts.

I'll try to KISS (Keep It Short and Simple) the topic. The new aircraft will bring increased efficiency. How??
The new generation aircraft have greater utilisation factors, better serviceability, reduced turnaround time and much better use of existing facilities, which you might be willing to concede.

All this can be achieved with the other aircrafts as well, for lower costs, in higher numbers and at nearly the same reach as well, so that is not a point that would make the C17 preferable, at least if it costs more than $500 million each.
The only unique advantage it has, is that it has the payload and size to carry MBTs, but that's hardly a realistic advantage for IA, because each aircraft can carry only a single MBT and that is not worth occupying the whole transport fleet.

THESE ARE NOT THE FINAL NUMBERS. In the meantime the first batches will have been successfully integrated in to the system. That is the road-map into the future.

Which is not possible, because C17 is at the end of the production line!

 

[Abingdonboy]

Does anyone know when the IAF intends to actually order the C-17s As the delivery time is actually very short the RAF received theirs only 11 months after the order was placed (December '09-November '10) so if IAF place order this year the first one could be delivered by next year!!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Which is not possible, because C17 is at the end of the production line!

Where did you get that from???? Quote me a source!
The C-17s are in the process of replacing the C-5 Galaxys of the USAF MAC, even as we speak. All C-5s have not been replaced/retired yet.
So give me a source.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Where did you get that from???? Quote me a source!
The C-17s are in the process of replacing the C-5 Galaxys of the USAF MAC, even as we speak. All C-5s have not been replaced/retired yet.
So give me a source.

Tbh that is not entirely correct, the C-17 was not really intended to replace ALL C-5s in service but instead offer what they could not- huge payload with STOL capability, most C-5s have been upgraded to carry on for at least another decade.

The USAF operates 200+ C-17s and with most orders completed the C-17 production line is expected to close some time this year or early next year. This is why the C-17 deal with India is so important to the US as it could keep production open for the years to come which provides 50,000+ jobs to Americans all over the US.
Production Line For C-17 Likely To Close In 2016 | AVIATION WEEK
http://baaereo.blogspot.com/2010/08/ending-c-17-production-watershed-event.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_41_233/ai_n29336177/
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=61533
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/end-production-line-c17-4867-3.html
http://bellum.stanfordreview.org/?p=1956

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Tbh that is not entirely correct, the C-17 was not really intended to replace ALL C-5s in service but instead offer what they could not- huge payload with STOL capability, most C-5s have been upgraded to carry on for at least another decade.

The USAF operates 200+ C-17s and with most orders completed the C-17 production line is expected to close some time this year or early next year. This is why the C-17 deal with India is so important to the US as it could keep production open for the years to come which provides 50,000+ jobs to Americans all over the US.
Production Line For C-17 Likely To Close In 2016 | AVIATION WEEK
BaAereo: Ending C-17 Production: Watershed Event for U.S. Aerospace Industry
Boeing Takes First Step In Closing C-17 Production Line | Defense Daily | Find Articles at BNET
Boeing to end C-17 production next year - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums
End of the production line for the C17?
Bellum » Uncertain Fate of C-17 Production

So you read "likely to close production line" as "at the end of the production line"?? That will happen if Boeing does not drum up further orders, not because the aircraft has reached the end of its development cycle; is'nt there a difference?

 

[gulte]

Why is Indian military using Intel process, unless i386 and i486 means something else, the Indian military is using obsolete Intel processors in the military?

Yes, Mission computers still use i386 and i486 processors for critical operations(mainly flight control) as they have matured enough to be reliable and probably whole design might have been verified formally, even Americans use the same chips in their aircraft mission computers. Non critical operations like signal processing of radar and other stuff uses much faster chips.

 

[sancho]

Where did you get that from???? Quote me a source!
The C-17s are in the process of replacing the C-5 Galaxys of the USAF MAC, even as we speak. All C-5s have not been replaced/retired yet.
So give me a source.

As Abingdonboy showed, they are at the end of the production because there are not enough orders anymore, so either we order them now, or never.
Also you are mistaken about C17 replacing C5, because both are totally different class of aircrafts. C17 is the counterpart of IL 76, while C5 is the counterpart of AN 124 (super heavy transport aircraft if you want).

 

[Capt.Popeye]

As Abingdonboy showed, they are at the end of the production because there are not enough orders anymore, so either we order them now, or never.
Also you are mistaken about C17 replacing C5, because both are totally different class of aircrafts. C17 is the counterpart of IL 76, while C5 is the counterpart of AN 124 (super heavy transport aircraft if you want).

Listen, if the production line is closed down for lack of orders; remember that its a temporary shut-down. The tooling, jigs and fixtures will not be thrown away or melted into scrap. If the aircraft reaches the end of the development cycle, then that is a final good-bye, because it will not be upgraded further, which means no buyers for new aircraft of that type ever.
For example: production of the venerable B-52 bomber in its various variants. While it was in production, the production line did not run continously, but in batches as it was developed and ordered. And parts of the line runs even now, just to maintain the aircraft in service to this day.

About the C-5 being both supplanted/replaced by the C-17, I am not wrong. Research the subject, you will find the answer. While there are seeming dissimilarities between them, one can do the work of the other, your search will tell which one that is.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Listen, if the production line is closed down for lack of orders; remember that its a temporary shut-down. The tooling, jigs and fixtures will not be thrown away or melted into scrap. If the aircraft reaches the end of the development cycle, then that is a final good-bye, because it will not be upgraded further, which means no buyers for new aircraft of that type ever.
For example: production of the venerable B-52 bomber in its various variants. While it was in production, the production line did not run continously, but in batches as it was developed and ordered. And parts of the line runs even now, just to maintain the aircraft in service to this day.


About the C-5 being both supplanted/replaced by the C-17, I am not wrong. Research the subject, you will find the answer. While there are seeming dissimilarities between them, one can do the work of the other, your search will tell which one that is.

Mate, just listen the fact is the PRODUCTION line is closing soon if no more orders are made meaning NO new ac will be made this is not the same as no FUTURE UPGRADES to existing ac. It is actually quite big news in the US and among the aviation industry, everyone knew this was coming as once the HUGE USAF orders were completed there as very little demand from the rest of the world for such a huge and expensive plane. And once again the C-17 was/is NOT meant to replace the C-5 but to supplement it and carry out missions it simply couldn't do, if your logic is correct then ALL C-5s should have been decommissioned in 2009 when the final C-17 orders for USAF were completed but the C-5 REMAINS in service amongst the USAF and ANG as it provide unique lift requirements the US deems it cannot do without.

 

[sancho]

Listen, if the production line is closed down for lack of orders; remember that its a temporary shut-down.

From the first source Abingdonboy gave:

Boeing anticipates that the production line for its C-17 military transport will end in about five years.

Forecast International has predicted that Boeing will shutter the C-17 production line in 2016. Mark Kronenberg, VP for international business development Boeing Defense, Space & Security, agrees that this is likely. He says it will be difficult to keep the production line open “above and beyond” 2016.

Boeing has had some success selling the C-17 overseas to countries including Australia. But not many countries require such a large aircraft, Kronenberg says.

The point is, the main orders of the US forces are already fulfilled and the export orders are the important point now, but when the interests is gone, it's not economical to keep the production line open further. Same happend with the Mirage 2000 production line, during the initial MRCA competition, which was the reason for Dassault to offer Rafale.

You can't compare the C17 that is available for exports with bombers that are dedicated to US forces only, because the one has an economic aim as well, while the other is aimed on the interest of US forces only.

 

[jha]

 

[Abingdonboy]

I know this is a bit of a trivial question but I personally find in intriguing-

What camo will the LCH,APACHE, LUH, DHRUV be in IAF service? we have seen the IAF Hinds in Grey which is a bit odd for an attack helo, the IA Dhruvs come in a variety of colours in IA service, a desert camo and a jungle camo. All over the world (except Isreal)the Apache is operated in a dark green terrain colour:

Will it continue in this colour in IAF service or will they have a unique camo or will they ask for the grey that the IAF Hinds sport to be used, this would certainly be an interesting sight!
Similarly with the LCH will it be in the Hind Gray or a camo? There have been pics of it in a unique digi camo anyone know what is the status of that? Is this the LCH standard camo from now on?

There have also been pics of it as a mockup in grey also, any speculation??

Help in answering any parts of my conundrum would be appreciated, thank you.


+ I know the Apache hasn't been officially picked but I reckon it's as good as!

 

[sancho]

I know this is a bit of a trivial question but I personally find in intriguing-

What camo will the LCH,APACHE, LUH, DHRUV be in IAF service? we have seen the IAF Hinds in Grey which is a bit odd for an attack helo, the IA Dhruvs come in a variety of colours in IA service, a desert camo and a jungle camo. All over the world (except Isreal) the Apache is operated in a dark green terrain colour:

Interesting question, I would say if it don't get the digital camo they will be grey again and would look like this: