IAF finalises order for 10 C-17 strategic airlifters

[bhagat]

Hey can someone explain why saras rotor blades are on the back side of the engine

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

Hey can someone explain why saras rotor blades are on the back side of the engine

because it uses "push propellars" instead of pull propellars.

 

[truthseeker2010]

10 C-17 is of little benefit for a country like India!!! We need atleast 20 more. But the price is too high. $ 410 million per ac!!

quality products don't come cheap.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

10 C-17 is of little benefit for a country like India!!! We need atleast 20 more. But the price is too high. $ 410 million per ac!!

no bhai. it doesnt work that way. the total deal is worth 4.1 billion dollars. it doesnt mean each aircraft is 410 million dollars. any aircraft deal includes, ground equipment and specialist equipment support, training of pilots and technicians, spare support for a specified period. these costs are included in 4.1 billion dollars. the actual rate per aircraft will be less.

 

[Whiplash]

so in 2020 IAF's airlift capability would composed of the following:
16 C-17
45 MRTA
45 Saras
16 C-27
12 C-130J

MRTAs are gonna increase. Remember only 50 MKI were initially ordered. Further, why are you retiring our IL 76s? They're still going strong!

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

Hey can someone explain why saras rotor blades are on the back side of the engine

Push props are used to get "clean" air over the wings and in turn get higher fuel efficiency during the cruise phase. That's the main reason why UAVs use them, to maximize loiter time. The down side to them is that they need a longer takeoff run. But with something like an UAV/Saras, the takeoff runs aren't really a problem because they are used on runways meant for larger aircraft anyways.

The main objective towards using push props is to maximize cruise phase fuel efficiency.
so a saras is likely to be more fuel efficient then an AVRO or An-32.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

MRTAs are gonna increase. Remember only 50 MKI were initially ordered. Further, why are you retiring our IL 76s? They're still going strong!

well IL-76 will serve for another 10-15 yrs. the main reason for their retiring is that their operating costs r too high. in simple term it is costly to operate an IL-76 than an C-17.

The fuel efficiency of IL-76 is way below c-17. Also c-17 requires a crew of 3 where as IL-76 requires a crew of 6 to fly the aircraft.

 

[Firemaster]

quality products don't come cheap.

then why you buy jf-17 and other chinese stuffs

 

[Whiplash]

How much various countries seem to have paid for C-17s

NOTE:

This list is for basic comparison. Not to prove any point
1:Qatars deal was an undisclosed direct commercial sale. So data unavailable.
2:The support deals are not the same. For example some countries may opt for 1 spare engine per aircraft, some countries for none at all.
3: It may appear that Canada has paid the least. But you have to take 2 factors into account.
a: Canada made the deal 5 years ago in 2006
b: USA and canada are attempting to make their forces interoperable. And hence this is like a sale to your own military. Not directed at export profit.
4:I'm not sure if the indian deal includes support. Sorry for that.
5: Even though NATO bought only 2 aircraft, the support deal is for 3-4 aircraft because they have loaned a couple from the USA.
6: The UAE deal, again was a direct commercial sale. But there is credible info on the internet suggesting they paid 1.3 billion for first 4 planes. From this it works out to be about 2 billion for all six.
7: And most importantly, this is a list i made in 15 minutes sitting on my arse. I apologise for any inaccuracies.

Source: The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
EDIT: The NATO support deal is 589 mil not 689. Sorry for the typo

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

How much various countries seem to have paid for C-17s

NOTE:

This list is for basic comparison. Not to prove any point
1:Qatars deal was an undisclosed direct commercial sale. So data unavailable.
2:The support deals are not the same. For example some countries may opt for 1 spare engine per aircraft, some countries for none at all.
3: It may appear that Canada has paid the least. But you have to take 2 factors into account.
a: Canada made the deal 5 years ago in 2006
b: USA and canada are attempting to make their forces interoperable. And hence this is like a sale to your own military. Not directed at export profit.
4:I'm not sure if the indian deal includes support. Sorry for that.
5: Even though NATO bought only 2 aircraft, the support deal is for 3-4 aircraft because they have loaned a couple from the USA.
6: The UAE deal, again was a direct commercial sale. But there is credible info on the internet suggesting they paid 1.3 billion for first 4 planes. From this it works out to be about 2 billion for all six.
7: And most importantly, this is a list i made in 15 minutes sitting on my arse. I apologise for any inaccuracies.

Source: The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
EDIT: The NATO support deal is 589 mil not 689. Sorry for the typo

brother, lets hope lice cycle support costs/training etc are included in the cost (it generally is) but u never know with us indians.

here i found a credible source. it i is inclusive of all costs.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2010/04/26/awx_04_26_2010_p0-222366.xml

 

[Whiplash]

brother, lets hope lice cycle support costs/training etc are included in the cost (it generally is) but u never know with us indians.

here i found a credible source. it i is inclusive of all costs.

Indian C-17 Deal with U.S. Advances | AVIATION WEEK

The link says 'may include'. The thing is, the initial deal was for 5.8 billion. But seeing this reduce to 4.1.. I think the life cycle costs are going to be added seperately

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

The link says 'may include'. The thing is, the initial deal was for 5.8 billion. But seeing this reduce to 4.1.. I think the life cycle costs are going to be added seperately

FMS purchases are way costly than tender purchases/normal purchases. usually it invloves a single vendor hence the cost is likely to be more than normal sale. but the advantage is the delievery is faster as compared to normal deal.

i hope it includes everything else its a very expensive deal.

 

[Whiplash]

FMS purchases are way costly than tender purchases/normal purchases. usually it invloves a single vendor hence the cost is likely to be more than normal sale. but the advantage is the delievery is faster as compared to normal deal.

i hope it includes everything else its a very expensive deal.

But looking at the canada price, inclusive of all life cycle costs.. I feel if we'd resorted to a little arm twisting we'd have got a much better deal. What say?

 

[acetophenol]

whats up with the india regional jet?

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

But looking at the canada price, inclusive of all life cycle costs.. I feel if we'd resorted to a little arm twisting we'd have got a much better deal. What say?

totally agreed. but we r so bending over back to americans these days i dont think govt can do a lil arm twisting.