IAF Chief Accepts 2nd Indian C-17 Today

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

You sure it was a IAF C-17 and not USAF?

IAF C17 i guess..but not too sure as i was directly under the plane.

 

[sancho]

This is the best heavy strategic transport in the world atm.With short take off landing capability,it can land on dirtpath and carry 80 tonnes of equipment.Its great for high altitude ops like in china border.

Have to give 1 thing to the americans,they know how to be on schedule..always.

1. Strategic transport = long range
2. High altitude operations = less payload
3. on schedule...:

Canada Refuses To Accept Sikorsky Helos

In what one top official is calling “the worst procurement in the history of Canada,” the government has refused to accept maritime helicopters being offered by Sikorsky under a $5 billion contract, arguing that the new aircraft don’t meet the needs of the Royal Canadian Air Force...

...The government has also hired a consultant to determine whether Sikorsky will be able to deliver the Cyclone maritime helicopter that the Canadian military contracted for in 2004...

...The first fully equipped helicopter was supposed to be delivered in November 2008, with delivery of all 28 helicopters by early 2011. But Sikorsky has yet to deliver a fully compliant helicopter...

Canada Refuses To Accept Sikorsky Helos | Defense News | defensenews.com


You might want to ask the Canadians also about the F35 and what happend to the Comanche, or the ARH-70 helicopters, not to mention the problems with their Littoral combat ship, or the latest carriers. Delivering C130s, C17, Ch 47, or even Apaches on time is not a big deal, since they are in production for decades, but it's not like the US, the Europeans or any other country wouldn't face production delays, or cost overruns too, we should know it at best anyway right?

 

[dbc]

1. Strategic transport = long range
2. High altitude operations = less payload
3. on schedule...:



Canada Refuses To Accept Sikorsky Helos | Defense News | defensenews.com


You might want to ask the Canadians also about the F35 and what happend to the Comanche, or the ARH-70 helicopters, not to mention the problems with their Littoral combat ship, or the latest carriers. Delivering C130s, C17, Ch 47, or even Apaches on time is not a big deal, since they are in production for decades, but it's not like the US, the Europeans or any other country wouldn't face production delays, or cost overruns too, we should know it at best anyway right?

The first Cyclones were due to be delivered in 2005, but the Liberals made the mistake of choosing a helicopter that was still in the design phase. As auditor-general Sheila Fraser later concluded, the Department of National Defence (DND) had “underestimated and understated the complexity and development nature of the helicopters it intended to buy.”

The Department was also guilty of exploiting the as-yet-unfinished character of the helicopter to ask Sikorsky for the inclusion of additional electronics and armaments. Their guilt was magnified by the fact that, since the procurement had already been approved, the additional equipment escaped political and budgetary scrutiny.

The admirals and generals might have got away with it, except for the fact that the additional equipment exceeded the weight limit for the Cyclone. This necessitated the design and development of more powerful engines, which in turn required a full-blown re-engineering of the helicopter. All this incompetence and unaccountability pushed the delivery date back from 2005 to 2008, and then to 2010, 2012 and now, supposedly, 2013.

It also pushed up the costs. In 2010, Fraser reported that the “total indicative costs of the 28 maritime helicopters were estimated at $2.8-billion” in 2000 and “revised to $3.1-billion” in 2003. She estimated an actual cost of $5.7-billion over 20 years, not including “contracted Sea King support, new infrastructure, Canadian Forces personnel and ongoing operating costs.”

By loading more electronics and weapons systems onto the Cyclone after the contract was signed, DND made itself partly responsible for the delays. This likely explains why the Harper government has not sought to recover any penalties from Sikorsky. If it did, the manufacturer would probably sue, which would draw attention to the mess and delay the procurement yet further.

Nice try Sancho, I guess most Indians should understand the dangers of scope creep and the risks involved in investing in a design concept.The Canadians can sue Sikorsky OR can they?.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...lunder-teaches-us-how-not-to-buy-helicopters/

 

[sancho]

Nice try Sancho, I guess most Indians should understand the dangers of scope creep and the risks involved in investing in a design concept.The Canadians can sue Sikorsky OR can they?.

LOL design concept and Canada should sue an American company? Please

We are talking about Sikorsky, the manufacturer that has developed and produced Sea Hawks for decades and you really want to argue that it was a big deal to modify the S92 to a naval version? Again, a modification, not a comple new development!
And when you look at the timeline, it is even the same as for our Gorshkov disaster and what do you think was more difficult, modifying the carrier, or modifying the S92?
So for Canada it definitely is a similar problem, especially when you also add the problems of their F35 partnership too and what can they do against that? Nothing, because they are too dependent on the US and bound under your political pressure anyway.
The point however was, that there is no country out there that can develop and produce defence techs always in time or according to the projected costs and your country actually proved that in the last years with a lot of cancelled projects, delays and cost increases.

 

[dbc]

LOL design concept and Canada should sue an American company? Please

We are talking about Sikorsky, the manufacturer that has developed and produced Sea Hawks for decades and you really want to argue that it was a big deal to modify the S92 to a naval version? Again, a modification, not a comple new development!

You are comparing an apple to an orange, the CH-148 was a "paper aircraft" when Canada came into the picture. The lesson to be learnt from the CH-148 saga is requirements creep is bad, choosing a platform not originally built for ship based deployment and then cramming it full of gear to do everything is a recipe for a disaster. It is summarized quite well by Defence Minister Peter MacKay in a report to the Canadian parliament when he said 'Canada purchased a paper aircraft'.

The C-17 itself experienced significant delays during its design. This isn't news, so please learn the difference between production delays and design delays.

A briefing note prepared last July for Mr. MacKay said that U.S.-based manufacturer Sikorsky was overly optimistic when it signed a contract with the previous Liberal government in 2004 to deliver new helicopters within four years. Instead of buying an off-the-shelf aircraft, the government of the day opted for what is frequently called a “paper aircraft” that was still in the design stage.

“A more realistic time frame for developmental aircraft such as the Cyclone, as demonstrated repeatedly in other international programs, has been 10 years due to the significant complexity of these weapon systems and their software and stringent test requirements,” the briefing note said. “Correctly or not, Sikorsky contractually agreed to a 48-month delivery schedule.”

DND spent $700,000 to undo renovations for delayed helicopter - The Globe and Mail


First, the Sikorsky CH-148 is a naval variant to the Sikorsky S-92 a land based medium-lift helicopter. The S-92 was not designed for Canada's MARITIME HELICOPTER PROJECT, it certainly wasn't designed for the following Canadian MARITIME HELICOPTER PROJECT Statement of Requirement(SOR).

"...capable of enduring “extremes of temperature, wind, humidity, icing, salt
spray, and turbulence typical of operations ranging from Canada’s sub-Arctic to tropical locations throughout the world.”


"...the helicopter to remain floating indefinitely to allow, not just for the escape of the personnel, but also for the recovery of the aircraft"

"...Vertical Replenishment (VERTREP), namely, the moving of supplies with an external cargo hook. The SOR set a minimal external cargo capacity requirement of 5,000 pounds."



The Agusta Westland EH-101 that was initially selected and the contract signed at a cost four times the cost of the Sikorsky CH-148. The EH-101 acquisition was dubbed "the Cadillac of maritime helicopters" by the Mulroney Government and the deal was cancelled and later awarded to Sikorsky.

A few years later the Agusta Westland EH-101 won a different Canadian contract for 15 search and rescue helicopter worth $790 million. Notice the same helicopter that once cost 4.4 Billion $ is significantly cheaper when configured for a single mission - search and rescue.

The concern was that announcing the EH-101 as the winner would cause embarrassment to
Prime Minister Chrétien.But eventually, in January 1998, EHI was awarded the SAR contract for fifteen EH-101 helicopters for a total of $790 million.

In 2002, the EH-101 entered into service in Canada under the designation CH-149 Cormorant. The British, for their part, designated their EH101s as EH-101 Merlin. Both fleets of these helicopters suffered from design flaws that led to persistent cracking in the tail rotor-hubs. This led to higher maintenance requirements and associated costs that were almost twice what was originally forecasted.Due to the cracking issue, inspections of the Cormorants’ tail rotors were changed to once every 25 flight-hours rather than once every 50 flight-hours.42 Just three years after entering service, the MCR of Canada’s Cormorants “dropped to a 12-month average of 45%.”In February 2004 all four Cormorants based in Gander, Newfoundland, were inoperable due to mechanical issues. In addition to the cracks in the tail rotors, corrosion in the fuel tank area had become a problem.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/si...fice/2013/02/Worst Procurement in History.pdf

If you look at the first SOR I posted above the requirement to operate in Sub-Arctic (extremely cold) and the tropics (hot and humid) required a new engine. The existing engine could not carry the weight of all the sensors and weapons for ASW, avionics ,passengers and SAR equipment and still operate on a single engine in the above conditions (extremely cold and extremely hot).
A new engine adds significant risks to a project OR have you forgotten your frequent criticism of the LCA project?

The Agusta Westland EH-101 a helicopter designed for maritime use, the helicopter that Canada initially opted for and later cancelled in favor of the Sikorsky CH-148 developed corrosion problems.
It is a no brainer that a helicopter not designed to be based on a ship will need significant development to operate at sea. Is this too hard for you to understand?

You have no grasp of operational design considerations. There is plenty of evidence in PDF to support my view, including the time you praised the IAF's decision to convert a military transport to a passenger aircraft and boasted you should be made the defence minister of India?

@Capt.Popeye @Bang Galore it looks like India may have found a replacement for the Saint.

 

[Echo_419]

Americans are damn fast
The speed at which they are shipping C-17 to us is amazing
Anyone knows when the lady one will touch down

 

[Gessler]

Livefist: PHOTOS: IAF Accepts 2nd C-17

 

[BoQ77]

We wish we have 1 C17

 

[sancho]

so please learn the difference between production delays and design delays.

No need to, because that's what I said in my first post as well, that it's not surprising that C17s or C130s that are in production for decades come on time, but that there are also many US projects that are delayed or are facing cost-overruns, just like it is the case with Russian arms or techs. We never had delays for Su 30Ks, MKIs or Mig 29Ks from them either, but the newly designed or developed arms, like Gorshkov, FGFA, MTA, will have the same problems that the west have as well.

It is a no brainer that a helicopter not designed to be based on a ship will need significant development to operate at sea.

And that is your justification, that Sikorsky isn't able to deliver just 28 helicopters, nearly a decade after the contract was signed? Again, they have decades of experience in navalising helicopters in various types, it's not like it's the first time.

including the time you praised the IAF's decision to convert a military transport to a passenger aircraft and boasted you should be made the defence minister of India?

Lol, the DM reference was an insider and those who stated that first, had understand it. However, the use of the MTA as a base for the RTA (btw the decision was made by MoD not IAF) is clearly the best way to go, if commonality and cost-effectiveness is the aim. When you at least had some idea of the RTA program, you would understand that too, because the initial program is just a mess out of different ideas, requirements and waaaay too hope. Using the same platform on the other side with some modifications, will give the project much higher chances of success, but claiming to know things that doesn't exist isn't new for you, or was that your wife again? But kind of cute how you scream for back up.

 

[Abingdonboy]

 

[dbc]

No need to, because that's what I said in my first post as well, that it's not surprising that C17s or C130s that are in production for decades come on time, but that there are also many US projects that are delayed or are facing cost-overruns, just like it is the case with Russian arms or techs. We never had delays for Su 30Ks, MKIs or Mig 29Ks from them either, but the newly designed or developed arms, like Gorshkov, FGFA, MTA, will have the same problems that the west have as well.

The Russians have delayed deliveries that range from Il-76 (18 month delay) to Su 30 MKI. The Su-30 deliveries were to begin in 1997 and end in 2000 but the first MKI arrived in the middle of 2002. So once again you are wrong, sucks doesn't it

The contract for the first 40 Su 30 fighters was signed in 1996, and the aircraft originally supposed to be delivered in batches and in a phased manner from 1997 through till 2000, with each batch being progressively more improved that the previous batch.In 1998, the IAF signed another contract for the delivery of a further 10 aircraft, originally scheduled to be delivered to Indonesia.

In October of 2000, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed, which paved the way for a complete Transfer of Technology and the manufacture of a further 140 Su 30 MKIs in India by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited(HAL). The deliveries were not with out their delays, which were flayed in the India media, however, the first batch of Su 30 MKIs were delivered in mid 2002 to the Lohegaon AFB in Pune.

Sukhoi Su-30 MKI

Deal I (30 Nov 1996) : The IAF signed a US $1462 million (equivalent to Rs 5122 crore) deal with Sukhoi on 30 November 1996 for the delivery of 40 Su-30 aircraft and the associated equipment from the Irkutsk plant in phased manner, spread out over four years - from 1997 to 2000. The contract provided for setting up of a Service Support Centre in India which was to undertake extended second line repair tasks of aircraft, avionics, aero-engines and aggregates to avoid the need to despatch them to the manufacturer.

Under this original contract, Su-30s would be delivered to the IAF in four batches:

The first batch (Su-30MK-I) of 8 aircraft would be delivered in 1997. These were 'standard' Su-30s (a development of the Su-27UB) and contained 100% (probably) Russian components and are primarily sir-superiority aircraft only. These fighters were first delivered to India at Lohegaon AFS in March 1997. They were inducted into the IAF on 11 June 1997 by the then Prime Minister, Inder Kumar Gujral. These planes are currently in service with IAF with serial nos SB001 to SB008 in the No. 24 Hawks squadron based at Lohegaon AFS.

The second batch (Su-30MK-IIs) of another 8 aircraft would be delivered in 1998 and would be fitted with Sextant Avionique's avionics from France, liquid crystal multi-function displays (MFDs), a new flight data recorder, a dual ring laser gyro INS (inertial navigation system) with embedded GPS (Global Positioning Satellite), EW (Electronic Warfare) equipment procured from Israel's IAI (Israeli Aircraft Industries), a new electro-optical targeting system and a RWR (Radar Warning Receiver).

The third batch (Su-30MK-IIIs) of 12 aircraft would be delivered in 1999 and would feature canard foreplanes

The fourth and final batch (Su-30MKIs) of 12 aircraft would be delivered in 2000 and would add the AL-31FP turbofans.

The first Su-30MKI were delivered by IAPO on June 22, 2002 aboard an An-124. 2 more followed in the same month. The first batch of 10 Su-30MKIs were inducted into the Indian Air Force on 27-Sep-2002 at Lohegaon AFS where the No. 20 Lightnings was constituted. The Phase-III aircraft deliveries were completed by Dec 2004, when around the same time the first HAL assembled Su-30MKIs rolled out.

And that is your justification, that Sikorsky isn't able to deliver just 28 helicopters, nearly a decade after the contract was signed? Again, they have decades of experience in navalising helicopters in various types, it's not like it's the first time.

Yes it does not matter, if the customers keeps changing requirements delays are to be expected.

Lol, the DM reference was an insider and those who stated that first, had understand it. However, the use of the MTA as a base for the RTA (btw the decision was made by MoD not IAF) is clearly the best way to go, if commonality and cost-effectiveness is the aim. When you at least had some idea of the RTA program, you would understand that too, because the initial program is just a mess out of different ideas, requirements and waaaay too hope. Using the same platform on the other side with some modifications, will give the project much higher chances of success, but claiming to know things that doesn't exist isn't new for you, or was that your wife again? But kind of cute how you scream for back up.

No back up needed, I wanted to highlight your arrogance to the two Indian members I respect. To believe that you qualify to become the Minister of Defence as you continue to second guess almost every IAF decision particularly when you have zero experience and dubious knowledge on the subject.

Just so you know converting a military transport aircraft to a civilian people carrier is a bad idea. If you'd ever flown in a military transport you'd know why. Military transport aircraft is not designed for passenger comfort, the interior of the aircraft is noisy and the ride is less comfortable due to the high wing design of military transport aircraft. In addition, low wing aircraft B-737,777,A-310,A330 etc are much more economical to operate. Aircraft designed exclusively for passenger transport is also cheaper to manufacture since civilian passenger aircraft aren't designed with survivability features and are not expected to be shot at. One such feature is the requirement to keep oxygen levels in fuel tanks below 9% on military transport aircraft so if the fuel tank is penetrated by a bullet the aircraft will not explode.

 

[Roybot]

 

[ptltejas]

US is very speedy in deliever plaes. he already deliever C-130 and also speedy to deliever this one.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You have no grasp of operational design considerations. There is plenty of evidence in PDF to support my view, including the time you praised the IAF's decision to convert a military transport to a passenger aircraft and boasted you should be made the defence minister of India?

@Capt.Popeye @Bang Galore it looks like India may have found a replacement for the Saint.

Hey DBC; now that is a real thought. A Saint Browne perhaps.
Two rolled into the price of one.
Summer Discounts are on.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Lo bhai glass le aao apna apna aage !!!

Indeed Champagne for all Americans, 580 millions price tag for each C-17...very good deal