VnomadIndia is not most competent to judge and great deal of corruption (they don’t care abouts savings anyway) could be involved as airforce pilots and technicians want to get trained on A-330 so they can easily transition to commercial firms after retirement.
These decisions are made by very senior officers who’ve stopped regular operational flying ages ago and will have retired from the service long before the aircraft are commissioned.
But in your world, ‘pilots and technicians’ get to choose which aircraft their country spends billions of dollars of valuable foreign exchange on. :rolleyes:
VnomadRemember JSR is the guy who last year proclaimed the only good strike aircraft are those fitted with a spine like his beloved Mig-29!
Nope. Still doesn’t compare to using a picture of a Leopard 2 being airlifting into Afghanistan to prove that ‘airlifting of tanks is a myth’.
VnomadTrue. Il-76 is a heavy lifter and hence can be compared to the C-17.
But it does not fall in the “wide-bodied” category. The fuselage of IL-76 is 4.8m in dia where as C-17 is about 6.8m dia. Even the Tu-330 based on the Tu-204 fuselage, which falls in the narrow body segment of commercial airliner, has a floor width of 4m compared to 3.45m of Il-76. As far as I’m concerned the lack of floor width & height is the main negative part to IL-76, in short accommodating over-sized cargo’s.
Wide-bodied does not distinguish two aircraft into different classes (airliners are a different case). Point is the IL-476 and C-17 are very much competitors as far as the military market goes. There is no space for them to coexist within the same organisation.
Time will tel if IAF will go for 476 or not.
Its is no fairy tale to buy, operate & maintain a costly beast like C-17. Everything related to it is costly. Only a fool would dream of cheaper spares & support, when its on after-sales services/spares that manufacturers all around the world make a living.
The decision by the IAF has already been made. They may be ‘fools’ but the IAF’s decision-makers have clearly tilted in the C-17’s favour. If they wanted the IL-476, they’d have gotten it – the Russian order was placed little over a year after the Indian C-17 order.
As a rule, we can even say that an aircraft that is cheaper to buy and which comes from a cheaper production/supply line will always be cheaper in its entire operational period compared to a product which is heavy on price and comes from a high cost production/supply line. PR contrary to it is just wishful thinking and rubbish, at-least until hard datas are provided. A good case to study with hard data would be MiG-29/UPG and M2k/-5. But we might not get hard data on these birds unless someone tables that question in Parliament or until these fighters are retired.
No such rule. The Su-30’s acquisition price is less than the Mirage 2000, yet operating costs are higher.
But on the contrary, it was mentioned that the 10 x C-17 would be evaluated after its induction and only after that another order will be placed.
That’s the way the follow-on order is always placed. The C-17 is an established mature aircraft and Boeing is contractually obligated to ensure that expected serviceability/availability benchmarks are met. Its unlikely that the IAF will run into any performance issues preventing a follow-on order.
Bottom-line is the IAF’s future heavy/strategic airlift capability will be exercised solely through the C-17.
In the article, the temperature mentioned during day was close to Zero degree and night halt was not there. Also, the author does not mention any aborted flights.
From the article,
And the other article doesn’t say anything about an engine failure, so where does that leave us.
Also, it does not give any bad image for the Il-76, rather its praise worthy that it came back safely even after loss of 12tons thrust. 😉
How would that have been for a $410million C-17 with an engine failure?
A potential engine failure should be construed as positive news?
Wrt to the C-17, I’d imagine it too could land on three or two engines, but if such an incident were to happen it would troubling news and questions would (rightfully) be asked of Boeing.
A-330MRTT does have advantage in payload-range, but with better engines as mentioned with CFM56-5C that advantage will be narrowed very much. Moreover, the production at TAPO is no more so I don’t know from where IAF could have acquired new built IL-78MKI. Probably that also came in as a reason to favor A330.
The airframes were uncompleted and unlike refurbished aircraft, had no operational use clocked on them.
And the arguments about the A-330’s payload-range also apply to the C-17 vis-a-vis the IL-476.
If C-17 are the only ones going to be used for strategic transport, It would be a good & cheaper option to upgrade and convert the older IL-76s to tankers.
They were acquired in the mid 80s. Not enough airframe life left to justify an expensive modification for tanker roles.
In the article it is mentioned that 3 hours was needed initially with Jaffna operations and by the time of Leh airlift it came down to 20-30 minutes.
The aircrafts sustained damage during the airlifting of tanks. The ‘jugaad’ was carried out because it was necessary, it was far from recommended. Also, there is no way to strap the tank inside, leading to extreme flying restrictions for the crew (compare it to how the C-17 crew immobilizes the L2/Abrams ensuring there is zero motion in flight).
T-90 has the same width as the T-72. The side skirts can be removed anyway so it doesn’t matter much. If they want to have it inside the IL-76, they can have it. But they might not take that pain in the future as the wider C-17 is available into which the tanks can be loaded more easily.
The T-90 is wider.
Also, side skirts were removed for the T-72 airlift as well. Fact remains the IL-76/476 cannot accommodate the T-90, let alone the Arjun.
we can also ask how many airstrips deep inside are of commercial aircraft quality.
More than enough. Agra, Gwalior, Pune, Bangalore for starters. Even though Agra is still set to remain the IAF’s transport/AWACS hub.
VnomadIL-76 with little more fuselage width would have been better. But, C-17 & IL-76 are of different class and the Russian equivalent was supposed to be the IL-106. The older IL-76 can very well transport the T-72 as displayed in the past and the fuselage width did present some problem, but it was probably a minor one when compared to the payload capacity which topped at 44tons.
You can’t widen the fuselage of the IL-76, not without a total redesign. Also, with a payload of 60 tons, its still theoretically in the same broad class as the C-17.
C-17 is a very costly beast and it is to remain as such in operations also. So even after acquiring the heavier C-17, we are likely to see IL-76s in the same strategic lifter role that it has been doing all these decades. It would hardly be a surprise if the IL-476 becomes the backbone of the strategic transport fleet once again in the future as it will be far cheaper than the C-17, not just in terms of acquisition cost, but also in terms of operating. With the production now getting concentrated in Russia & Ulyanovsk, we can also look forward to see better spares & support for the IL-476.
You’re not going to see any IL-476 orders placed by the IAF. The higher payload is only a result of installing new engines. Since the available floor space remains the same, the actual payload capacity for most operations remains unchanged.
The main problem now is how fast they can deliver. The latest orders mentioned 39 for Russian AF and about a 100 for civilian operators. Then there is China which is likely to buy 60 of these.
On the contrary, even with the C-17, the IAF is trying to space out deliveries. With its existing IL-76s being upgraded and C-17s set to enter service soon, quick deliveries of the IL-476 would almost certainly result in expensive surplus capacity in the heavy lift segment.
No chance for IAF to have evaluated IL-476 in 2010, when the aircraft only took to air last month. Though it maybe possible that they might have checked the older IL-76 with PS-90A engines.
Probably they mean the older IL-76s with PS-90A-76 engine. Since C-17 deal was through FMS, the chance for any comparative evaluation is very low.
The difference is marginal. For all practical purposes, the IL-476 did not meet the IAF’s requirements. Flight trials on the other hand are conducted primarily to verify advertised performance and were therefore unnecessary in this case.
Or it’s just a manufactured news without mentioning the full context like what we heard about the zero payload story of IL-76s to Leh during summer. In that story, even using little logic one could have asked a genuine question on how an aircraft that airlifted 30 x T-72s weighing 43 tons in Jan-Feb 1988 (winter) to an altitude of over 10,000ft ASL can have a 100% performance drop in summer. For such a 100% performance drop, the aircraft must have at least one engine failure. That is the reason why the story is probably not as simple as it is/was made out to be and it is incomplete.
The temperature at Leh goes as high as 35 deg in summer and as low as -25 deg in winter. There can be a world of difference between operations in different seasons, not to mention the possibility of inclement weather at any particular time.
All missions carried out are done so with a significant safety margins factored in. Its possible that in wartime conditions, a similar landing would have been acceptable even with the attendant higher degree of risk. Also we don’t know how many flights were aborted during the 1988 airlift, so we hardly use that as a benchmark of the aircraft’s performance.
And even assuming that an engine failure took place, that’s hardly good news for an aircraft’s manufacturer hoping to sell an upgraded variant of the aircraft to the service.
No chance for the IAF to have evaluated the performance of the IL-476 which only flew recently.
“The aircraft was chosen after a very detailed study. All the existing and developing aircraft were considered.” – ACM P.V. Naik with respect to the selection of the C-17.
That aside, there is an abundance of evidence suggesting that the IAF is less than enthusiastic about the IL-76 as a platform especially vis-a-vis its western competitors, as well as being unsatisfied with Russian support for the aircraft. There have been issues even with spares supply for the new PS-90 engines.
Its no accident that the IAF has been considering a different platform for the follow-on Phalcon order and that it picked the A-330MRTT over the IL-78MKI, despite a lower bid from the Ilyushin as well as the prospect of logistical commonality.
Arjun mk1 might fall within the load capacity of the IL-476, but its width wont allow it in. There wont be any problem w.r.t airlifting T-90s. Its very well inside the 476 margins.
In the earlier case, the payload capacity of the Il-76 was at its edge. It was powered with the D-30KP engines with just 12tons of thrust where as PS-90A gives out 16tons.
The issue with the T-72 was volume as much as it was payload. Quoting from the BR article on the issue –
The max wt of cargo in the IL-76 is 43 tons, so with a T-72 inside, the IL-76 cannot carry even an empty condensed milk tin. The driver now has to follow very precisely the instructions of the Load Master who is standing in front of him and marshalling the tank forward. It is done with hand signals, no other gunner can give inputs. It’s all between the driver and the Load Master. As the driver engages the tracks to the engine, the tank jerks and our hearts pop into our mouths. In fact this heart popping goes on throughout the loading / off loading exercise, and is a cardiologists delight. The reason for this cardiac-thorax link is that, there is less than a foot of space between the steel tracks of the T-72 and the cargo compartment skin. And, right behind the aircraft skin run the hot air ducts for pressurising and heating the ac. If the tank moves sideways by more than a foot, the steel tracks break the duct.
The reverse heart stopping process is repeated to offload the mighty T-72. The driver now moves in reverse gear, still taking his cues from the fingertips of the outstretched hands of the Load Master. Like a caterpillar, he brings his tank to the loading sill where the cables can be connected, and the tank can be winched out onto the ground. No wonder it took over 3 hours at times to load one T-72, and another 3 hours to off load it. We were learning, along with the tank crew. All this happened in the first few days of Oct 1987.
With only a bare 12 inches between the steel track and the inner skin of the ac, many aircraft were damaged requiring repairs. To decrease the chances of damage to the aircraft because of the ‘jhatka’ or jerk, when the tracks are engaged to the engine, the tension on both tracks was made as equal as possible. This equalising is achieved by the tank crew using of all things, a plumb line. The cavalry are used to plus / minus 10 feet in accuracy of manoeuvrability. We wanted plus / minus 2-3 inches!
Now bear in mind the fact that the T-90 is nearly a foot wider than the T-72. Loading a T-90 on a IL-476 is a very improbable event and driving it in to be secured by the crew as with the C-17, is quite simply impossible.
India, Russia and China, all of them have something in common. That is lots of runways not meeting ‘western standards’ in terms of ‘quality’ & ‘cleanliness’. In real war-time like situations, it is almost impossible to maintain even the best of runways deep inside the territory in perfect conditions. So platforms like IL-76 with high mounted engines are better suited to operation than the commercial airliners based layout that have more chances to have FOD with engines.
AEW&C aircraft especially those in the A-50/Sentry/Wedgetail class are not expected to operate out of forward air bases or unprepared airstrips.
Vnomaddel
Vnomadsure, ToT is a big part of the MTA, but if that didn’t work out for some reason, buying more C-130s would not be the alternative, buying C-390s from Embraer would be, and would be superior in terms of maintenance costs. Even licence building parts of it would be more relevant work than doing so for C-130s.
Its my understanding that with the design finalized and the first prototype set to fly in two years they’re too far along for India to play a meaningful role in the evolution of the program (not unlike the PAKFA/FGFA program). Also unlike the case with the MTA, Brazil and India do not have any military or industrial ties of note (though the order for the ERJ-145 is a good start) and the cross-continental cooperation may be less than synergistic. Basically, India isn’t likely to get a lot more ToT or workshare from Brazil than what the Russians are offering.
If having a prop was so important to India, they could/should pay for integrating the engines from An-70 onto MTA. If that isnt’ a priority, PD-14s also usable on AWACS and set for larger production runs MS-21, etc, are probably the best bet. The C-130J’s are new, and any unique performance they offer will be available for missions that need it.
Its not about props being important. Its about further diversification of the transport fleet being avoidable. The IAF is already set to operate 12 C-130Js with more being actively considered. Logistically it makes sense to stick with it. Aside from the higher speed generated by its jet engines, there is no operational incentive to pursue the MTA or for that matter the C-390.
The purchase conditions stipulate a 30% offset in the domestic market, and one could negotiate a deal where at least a third of the aircraft by value is manufactured locally. In terms of production workshare that’s probably comparable to what the Russians are offering (given that IAF is to order 45 of the 145 MTAs built). Exports prospects for the MTA/C-390 appear weak; the market will be brimming with medium lift transports by the end of the decade.
I confess I was rather disappointed when the news about the C-130J order was first released, but back then I thought the MTA was actually going somewhere and should have been used in that role instead. Fast forward 5 years, the C-130J has been delivered (ahead of schedule), everyone’s delighted with it and its orders have been doubled, while the MTA is still nowhere. Going into the future the IAF’s medium lift aircraft will at least partially comprise of the Super Herc; may as well standardize the type.
The prospect of ToT will have to be abandoned but the resulting rationalization in the fleet’s structure (especially if the C-27J is picked to replace the An-32) will be worth it.
VnomadMTA is in different category than C-130 J; so no competition there.
There performance is certainly not be identical but in terms of their roles, there is enough of an overlap to make a broad comparison necessary.
The IAF’s transport fleet can be categorized into light, medium and heavy lift. Light – An-32, Medium – HS 748, Heavy – Il-76. The Il-76s are already set to be replaced by 20 C-17s. A competition primarily involving the EADS C-295 and Alenia C-27J, will introduce a replacement for the An-32 (which will soldier on for a while). Which leaves the HS 748, that while not a true cargo aircraft did serve in considerable numbers. Originally the C-130J was acquired to serve in a niche role (special operations) but its now being regarded as excellent option for general duties.
Point is, there is no real requirement for a turbofan powered medium transport aircraft. The USAF for example appears to be comfortable with its mix of C-27J, C-130J and C-17. Same goes for the Europeans. What the C-130J lacks in speed vis-a-vis the MTA, it more than makes up for in superior range and rough field performance.
The only real reason for persisting with the JV is workshare and technology and if (as it seems) an acceptable deal cannot be worked out with the Russians, its better to scrap the program altogether.
VnomadThe need less crew and engines have much greater service lifes. there is not much investment in tank engines on scale as chopper engines. gunship engines are common with transport choppers. it benefits the industrial chain
Lol. Costs the same to train tank and helicopter crews I see.
They are indeed replacing. All major powers are reducing Tanks intake by large and but adding choppers in multiples with much greater capabilities, longers ranged weopons and sensors.
So the era of tanks being employed in war is coming to an end. :rolleyes:
Afghanistan is the biggest continous air operations. and it offers all kind of terrain.
Aside from the fact that tanks ARE deployed in Afghanistan, did you finally get around to examining the terrain where tanks are deployed along the LAC?
so they didnot evaluated as you claimed. Advance versions is only those that are flying with Volga and Silkairways. India is small country with short routes. At most one or two exercises outside. see Ruaf it has to deploy equipment on very fast area more efficiently and quickly.
They considered it, it did NOT meet their requirements so no RFP was issued to Ilyushin.
what else is beside engines that make up $120m of support costs?. IF takes that much to support it without engines than it is simply not viable.
Aircraft production is scaled down due to finishing up of USAF orders. so costs have risen alot.
Use THIS wonderful tool to find out what besides engines makes up support costs.
Deliveries to the USAF will not end until late 2013. And export orders will keep the line going well beyond that.
yup so every thing is going to be supplied by ground and only tanks will be airlifted. have u looked why supplies are air droped in Afghanistan.
Much as you love to talk about Afghanistan, that’s NOT where the PLA or the Indian Army is deployed. Please study the terrain where they ARE deploying tanks, then study the logistics involved, and only then should you voice an opinion on the operating conditions involved.
You made nonsens claim of tanks airlifting. I gave u example t countries dont attempt it on scale against non existent power. and your her claiming that tanks will be airlifted to battle field against superior air force.
NATO/ISAF forces have airlifted tanks into Afghanistan. Fact. The PLA has tank forces deployed in the TAR. Fact. The IAF has airlifted tanks to the Indian NE. Fact. The IAF has airlifted tanks into the Ladakh region. Fact.
And despite that information being six inches from your nose, along you come informing everybody that airlifting of tanks is a ‘myth’.
An-124 production will be higher in future than C-17 once new engines/avionics are certified. There is big demand for its 150 tons version.
$300m price 11000km range with 150 ton payload.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2012-07-09/russia-ukraine-pact-set-put-ruslan-heavylifter-back-production
When it enters production we can compare it to the C-17 for a foreign customer.
VnomadA while ago I researched both upgrades to compare prices…
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/indias-fighter-modernization-add-mig29s-to-the-list-updated-01879/So it seems Mig 29 upgrades adds only 1000h to the meager 2500h airframe life.
If you compare price to flight hour the Mirage upgrade is quite cheap isn’t it?
Nic
Most news sources say that there isn’t any airframe modification being done as a part of the Mirage upgrade. Both aircraft should start retiring after 2025 except for the newer set of Mirages that could serve till 2035.
VnomadTanks are cheaper to acquire and operate?. u need 3 people salary to operate tank. they have huge fuel (short range) and logistics (tank shells) costs. extremely vulenerable from Air power to IED.
LOL. While gunships fly on their own.
Gunships have much greater engine power so more sophisticated radar and Electronic warfare suites can be installed. high speed and low altitude flight ensure element of surprize in attack along with greater turn around time.
Gunships aren’t replacing tanks anywhere.
I dont see any utility of tanks in mountains. how many choppers operate in afghanistan and compared to tanks.
Did you finally get around to examining the terrain where the tanks are being deployed on the India-China front? Or does your world begin and end in Afghanistan.
IAF didnot evaluate IL-476 as it hasnt flow yet and and all initial orders are for Ruaf. Only new versions with PS-90 that are used extensively are two to three carriers.
http://www.silkway-airlines.com/
The IAF didn’t have to have flight test the Il-476 to make up its mind.
An advanced version of the Il-76 was also considered to meet future requirements, but the defence ministry sources say the C-17 was the preferred choice.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/iaf-to-get-10-c-17s-from-boeing/612076/
there is no support cost for additional single order. as there is no spare engines involved. Engines are $40m for a single C-17. so if they are not part of support. it is not really a support as i said prices are rising as production winds down.
Support costs are not limited to engines. And aircraft production is set to continue past 2015. There’s been no scaling down at the plant so far.
how many tanks can be supported with small fleet.
They don’t need to be supported by air.
why didnot US lift tanks in C-17 into Northern Iraq instead of fighting all the way from the South.
So now you want to discuss the Iraq War. :rolleyes:
Fact of matter is Russian cargo companies are using for years continously to support Iraq/Afghan wars. They exactly know what kind of cargo was carried. the kind of landing strips that were built. the distance carried. where the hubs are located globally. and they made the most profit. All this real world experiance is input into IL-476. and modernized An-124.
Doesn’t change the fact that the An-124 isn’t in production and the Il-476 can’t airlift tanks.
so gradients steeper means tanks are not workable on Indian side.
Please examine the terrain where they are deployed. The routes to those areas are a different issue.
Vnomadgunships are more protected. they provides low altiude and hoovering flexibility in mountanous area. much better to fight at greater distances with cannon/rockets against individual targets. Much cheaper operation than Fighters. no need for airbase with long runways.
Tanks are better protected than gunships and aren’t susceptible to MANPADS. They’re also cheaper to acquire and operate than a gunship. The advent of aerial gunships hasn’t rendered them obsolete.
Tanks have zero utility there. they will be stuck where ever they are if there is land slides.
Stuck where? Did you finally identify the sectors of deployment and the the terrain in those areas?
I dont think IAF evaluated IL-476. All the first production slots will go to Ruaf some production slots from late 2013 will go towards A-100 AWACS. only after 2015 that production will be stablized for export. Ruaf intend to get 250 to 300 transports before 2020. any other airforce in world will be hopeless to match this procurement pace for new transport aircraft.
The IAF did evaluate the IL-476 and there is no rule that says export orders cannot be serviced concurrently with domestic orders.
C-17 is not a multirole with AWACS/Air refuller. Its price will further rise as there isnt big procurement from USAF. price is now above $320m in 2012 for repeat customer.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/ModToBuyExtraC17Aircraft.htm
Includes support. Fly away cost is less than 2/3rds of that.
compared to 10,000 feet that Jango mentioned.
JangBoGo also mentioned that the IAF has had to airlift tanks to that altitude, so that pretty much blows a hole in your theory about such a mission requirement being a ‘myth’.
armoured cars are not 50 to 60 tons beasts. but i can hardly blame ur comparing a slow moving turbo prop C-130 with MTA in another thread.
I said armoured forces not armoured cars. ‘Armoured forces’ include tanks. Seriously, are you using a translation tool?
Those tanks are surely not airlifted by PLA.
http://i41.tinypic.com/e9xgmr.jpg
The gradients are far steeper on the Indian side of the LAC. Doesn’t change the basic premise – tanks are being used in high altitude regions.
VnomadAttack choppers has more flexibility to pick individual targets with cannon and rockets at much greater range with sensors. it can go to places where Tanks cannot. Tanks are for desert and urban environment.
And a fighter aircraft can go very fast and destroy its target from many many miles away. So what? The utility of tanks remains unaffected.
Tanks are simply not criteria for medium lift transport aircraft. They have alot more uses.
JangBoGo brought up the Il-476’s narrow body as a specific disadvantage vis-a-vis the C-17, a capability that probably figured into the IAF’s selection of the latter as the core of its future strategic transport fleet. That fact remains unchanged.
it is flown to much lower elevation in much larger aircraft with full runway.
Much lower elevation compared to what?
yup lifting tanks to higher elevation is so good idea. they will become static targets. and will face ATGMs at various elevations not to mention airpower.
when tanks dont have mobility they lose big advantage. for mobility it needs lots of fuel/recovery/support vehicles.
Are you using a language translating tool? Because there’s obviously a communication gap here. Maybe this time the message will sink in – kindly take a look at terrain in the specific sectors where armoured forces are being deployed.
Also, for your kind information the PLA has a division sized tank force based in the TAR and an estimated two armoured brigades in the Szechuan province. India has inducted tanks piecemeal in border regions in the past, but for the first time it too is deploying two armoured brigades near the ‘Line of Actual Control’.
Apparently, neither side is aware of your theories on the limitations of armoured vehicles.
VnomadAnd revenue = profit, only from the Break-Even point, which is why it is the most valued term for any business venture or a products commercial success.
That is why I never used the term break-even point in what I wrote as I don’t know how much of a margin will be there….
Revenue =/= profit even after the break-even point.
So what I meant is @$50million/unit, a sale of 12-13 MTAs will generate a revenue equal to the sunken cost and 8-4 MTA will do the job if it is priced at $80million/unit. w.r.t the profit margin and the break-even figure you mentioned, I’m not sure if your figures are correct mainly due to the profit margin you took.
The absolute revenue/turnover figure is immaterial as far as breaking even is concerned. Its the net profit that’s to be watched and frankly 15-20 MTAs is far too small a production figure to recoup the capital invested.
So if I’m to consider that MTA can be produced @ $33-$35 million/unit, instead of $9miliion you mentioned, we are likely to see nearly $15million/unit in terms of margin, which gives us the following figures….
@ $50million/unit, 12-13 MTAs will give a profit of $180million – 195million
Or, if we talk that in terms of breaking-even, it will come from the 41st MTA rolling out and not with the 67th or 68th aircraft.
You may break even at 40 units, but its still not a profitable venture at that point. But if production continues for another 20 or 30 units then yes, it may be a worthwhile venture.
And if Russia can sell MTA in an open tender against C-130J by clinching it for $120million/unit against $160million/unit of its competitor, the profit margin is going to be huge…
I wouldn’t be all that certain about the advantage in cost. There is plenty of potential for cost escalation given its in-development status, unlike the C-130J that has a stable production line.
Internationally the market for military transports isn’t all that big and the US already has part of it sealed off (eg. Australia, South Korea, Japan) and with the already mature A-400M and C-130J in the arena, the competition is stiff. Unless it hits gold in Saudi Arabia or China, India remains the only major export market for the aircraft.
All the above are on speculative figures, so take it like that only and is meant to give just an idea… but the point I was making earlier or wanted to make was that even if India pulls out of it, it is not going to affect Russia or UAC. They can do much better without the JV which will only be putting a cap on their margins in the long run.
Frankly, I did not get the impression that the Russian Air Force was very enthusiastic about the project regardless of its potential (unlike for example, the PAKFA program). Its mostly committed to the IL-476 and An-70, but both the IL-214 and the Tu-330 have remained mostly on paper.
As we see from the figures itself, Russia is going to be the biggest user of this aircraft and IAF needs only 45 aircraft (for now, though it can in crease in the future). And no one in the open market gets work share or technical capability for just 45 aircraft.
A-400M ‘Atlas’ –
France – 50 aircraft
Germany – 53 aircraft
UK – 22 aircraft
Spain – 27 aircraft
That is why I mentioned, it is/was too good in favor of HAL. If the deal is cancelled/torpedoed, the biggest looser will not be Russia, it will only be HAL & India.
Well… the IAF is delighted with the performance of its C-130Js as well as the degree of support provided by Lockheed Martin.
The main reason for engaging in a joint venture for the MTA is to gain technical expertise and development workshare. But if proposals for those are not satisfactory, logistically it makes more sense to persist with the C-130J, perhaps with some degree of domestic production introduced through the Tata JV.
Vnomaddel
Vnomadwhat can 30 MBT do which attack chopper, much longer range tube artellery cannot do. these things are lighter and getting more longer range.
What can attack helicopters do that fighter aircraft can’t. What can tube artillery do that MBRLs can’t. What can MBRLs do that cruise missiles can’t. :rolleyes:
Combined arm warfare necessitates the tanks be used in conjunction with APCs/IFVs, artillery and air support. Either/or doesn’t enter the question.
flying MBT with transport aircraft is myth.
^^^ In the very same post as a picture of Leopard 2 being airlifted. Words fail me.
55~70 ton MBT is going consumed fuel at rate greater than anything else. which simply cannot be supported by airlift alone. MBT are for desert/flat grounds not higher elevation.
see below. it is airlifted to much lower elevation on much larger aircraft. and this only happened in air dominance.
You can be truly incorrigible. You and I both know you have absolutely no idea what kind of terrain the tanks will be deployed in whether its in Ladakh or Sikkim or what sort of infrastructure to support them exists on ground. Five minutes on google would have clarified matters for you. But you’d rather comment first and risk being called out as a troll.
Sign In
