What's new

India sets the ball rolling for Rs 13,000 crore IAF deal

the reason we don't have such a large force of air-lifters as compared to the US is that up till now we had a defensive mindset and didn't need to reach out of our borders and our armed forces had to be serviced inside our borders....the US needs a large force for servicing their global bases which are spread all over the world...but the times are changing and hopefully we will build up our transport fleet piece by piece not only in numbers but also in quality

And that is why I mentioned not only US, but other countries as well. Look at how many transport aircrafts countries like France have, although the size of their military, as well as country is much smaller than India's. In proportion to the size of its military, size of its country and number of places that have to be air-maintained, India's transport fleet is small by modern standards.
 
.
I have a question :raise:

India already have inducted or in the process of induction of C17 globemaster and c130 super herculus transport plane. what is the need of extra transport plane ?

India and Russia already in talks of joint medium transport aircraft project ?

Why so many transport planes ?

What India want to achieve with these different planes ??

The avro has a unique STOL ability.This allows it to operate[logistics support] without airfields.Extremely useful in the NE where airfields are sparse in forward areas.
 
. .
And that is why I mentioned not only US, but other countries as well. Look at how many transport aircrafts countries like France have, although the size of their military, as well as country is much smaller than India's. In proportion to the size of its military, size of its country and number of places that have to be air-maintained, India's transport fleet is small by modern standards.

It's not that simple, since you have to compare the requirements of the different countries as well. The US don't have so many heavy class aircrafts because their country is so big, but because their military policy is aimed on wars far away from their home. They have to support numerous of bases all over the world, therefor they needs hundreds of C17s and C5s.
India is a big country by size, but we have very limited use of strategic aircrafts. Our main requirement is to support our forces inside and around India mainly and that with medium loads I would say, since it's doubtful that we would use a fully loaded C17 too often in India itself. Even the strategic roles in disaster relief missions, or during exercises in other countries are pretty limited, which makes a big and expensive C17 fleet not useful for us.
The Avro replacement and the MTA will be the workhorses of IAF inside of India and I'm sure the number of orders will go up eventually.
 
. .
It's not that simple, since you have to compare the requirements of the different countries as well. The US don't have so many heavy class aircrafts because their country is so big, but because their military policy is aimed on wars far away from their home. They have to support numerous of bases all over the world, therefor they needs hundreds of C17s and C5s.
India is a big country by size, but we have very limited use of strategic aircrafts. Our main requirement is to support our forces inside and around India mainly and that with medium loads I would say, since it's doubtful that we would use a fully loaded C17 too often in India itself. Even the strategic roles in disaster relief missions, or during exercises in other countries are pretty limited, which makes a big and expensive C17 fleet not useful for us.
The Avro replacement and the MTA will be the workhorses of IAF inside of India and I'm sure the number of orders will go up eventually.

Currently we do have Il-76 in service, with 40 tonne payload capacity. None of our planned aquisitions can replace that, since the MTA only has 20 (18?) tonne payload. I guess they decided that it is better to go for a C-17 class aircraft than an Il-76 class.

It's not just about strategic loads, like a tank or IFVs. Base depots in far flung places like Siachen have to be supplied with ammo and food. These base depots then cater to forward posts via helicopters. Also, to carry our ballistic missiles?

All said and done, they have only purchased 10, with an option for 6 more. So maybe they will use it for these loads only. The missile carrying or transporting arty guns cannot be done by any other aircraft we plan to get, and for heavy cargo, a C-17 will be cheaper than 2-3 flights of MTA.
 
.
Currently we do have Il-76 in service, with 40 tonne payload capacity. None of our planned aquisitions can replace that, since the MTA only has 20 (18?) tonne payload. I guess they decided that it is better to go for a C-17 class aircraft than an Il-76 class.

The 45t that the current IL76 is just their old capability, but just like the C17 they are strategic lift aircrafts, that's why the C17 is replacing them.

It's not just about strategic loads, like a tank or IFVs. Base depots in far flung places like Siachen have to be supplied with ammo and food. These base depots then cater to forward posts via helicopters. Also, to carry our ballistic missiles?

All said and done, they have only purchased 10, with an option for 6 more. So maybe they will use it for these loads only. The missile carrying or transporting arty guns cannot be done by any other aircraft we plan to get, and for heavy cargo, a C-17 will be cheaper than 2-3 flights of MTA.


The main advantage the C17 will bring inside of India is, that it can land at high altitude airstrips with greater loads (if I'm not wrong around 30t) and at some more airstrips than the IL 76 can. However, neither will we use them in general transport roles, to lift only a single MBT, nor to drop paratroopers, where even an C130J has roughly the same performance. For general vehicles like IFV, SPH, helicopters... it obviously will be our only choice (which is troubling me), since MTA won't be able to carry much more than jeeps, maybe smaller trucks, or towed howitzers and that to far more airstrips than a C17.
 
.
Got it ...

but what is strategy behind so much of airlift ?

Are we preparing for war with CHina because in case of Pakistan , we don't need c17 Globemaster.

Do we have other objective other than preparing with China ?

The C-17s have been bought surely keeping in mind Sino-India Border.

Their ability to carry troops and cargo is massive and there are some bases, where if they are deployed, they can act as strategic air lifter in war against both China and Pakistan.(Bases in North India)

And we need to replace gajrajs too, hence C-17s have been bought
 
.
It's not that simple, since you have to compare the requirements of the different countries as well. The US don't have so many heavy class aircrafts because their country is so big, but because their military policy is aimed on wars far away from their home. They have to support numerous of bases all over the world, therefor they needs hundreds of C17s and C5s.
India is a big country by size, but we have very limited use of strategic aircrafts. Our main requirement is to support our forces inside and around India mainly and that with medium loads I would say, since it's doubtful that we would use a fully loaded C17 too often in India itself. Even the strategic roles in disaster relief missions, or during exercises in other countries are pretty limited, which makes a big and expensive C17 fleet not useful for us.
The Avro replacement and the MTA will be the workhorses of IAF inside of India and I'm sure the number of orders will go up eventually.

What's your opinion about A 400M dude. a true strategic airlifter with 35+ tonnes of cargo which surely fills our heavy airlift needs na.

The 45t that the current IL76 is just their old capability, but just like the C17 they are strategic lift aircrafts, that's why the C17 is replacing them.




The main advantage the C17 will bring inside of India is, that it can land at high altitude airstrips with greater loads (if I'm not wrong around 30t) and at some more airstrips than the IL 76 can. However, neither will we use them in general transport roles, to lift only a single MBT, nor to drop paratroopers, where even an C130J has roughly the same performance. For general vehicles like IFV, SPH, helicopters... it obviously will be our only choice (which is troubling me), since MTA won't be able to carry much more than jeeps, maybe smaller trucks, or towed howitzers and that to far more airstrips than a C17.

Yes c 17 is the only aircraft landed and take off with 30+ tonnes payload in high altitudes region like ladakh where the O2 is very thinner. But il 76 even struglled to land and take off in empty load with its previous engines. but with with PS 90A engine it landed with 15 tonnes payload i think so but am not sure. But still il 76 struggling to land their.
The C-17 will replace the obsolescent Russian IL-76 airlifter, which has served the IAF since the early 1980s but is now unreliable. The IAF is impressed with the C-17’s abilities, especially after 20th June 2010. During trials in Ladakh, in the oxygen-thin air of that hot summer day, the IL-76 was unable to land even without a payload. The C-17, to the IAF’s delight, landed and took off with 30 tonnes on board.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/08/boeings-uncertainties-create-c-17.html
 
.
What's your opinion about A 400M dude. a true strategic airlifter with 35+ tonnes of cargo which surely fills our heavy airlift needs na.



Yes c 17 is the only aircraft landed and take off with 30+ tonnes payload in high altitudes region like ladakh where the O2 is very thinner. But il 76 even struglled to land and take off in empty load with its previous engines. but with with PS 90A engine it landed with 15 tonnes payload i think so but am not sure. But still il 76 struggling to land their.

Broadsword: Boeing’s uncertainties create C-17 deadline for IAF

A400 would fit the gap between the MTA and C-17 which would be 20 and 70ton respectively which is a substantial gap (excluding the C-130J which is a dedicated Spec Ops platform). The IAF must be looking into options to fill this glaring gap and of will either be filled by an order for basic,stripped down, C-130Js or A400s but this will be in a few years time when the Avro-replacement and C-17 follow-on orders are sorted.
 
.
In India a mega deal means another mega graft. The beneficiaries from this deal would be the next govt. Sonia sisters may miss this one.
 
.
In India a mega deal means another mega graft. The beneficiaries from this deal would be the next govt. Sonia sisters may miss this one.

How many aircrafts in the IAF inventory currently had allegations of graft?
 
.
How many aircrafts in the IAF inventory currently had allegations of graft?

Look into the IDF even. All IAF purchases have been graft-loaded. The former IAF Chief Tyagi is under Intel watch.
Lookout notice against ex-IAF chief in chopper deal: Antony | idrw.org
 
.
Look into the IDF even. All IAF purchases have been graft-loaded. The former IAF Chief Tyagi is under Intel watch.
Lookout notice against ex-IAF chief in chopper deal: Antony | idrw.org

You didn't answer the question. You can't. IDF, my foot.

Yes, there are suspicions (and that what they are - suspicions) about one deal and SP Tyagi. Nothing to warrant your statement that "all IAF pruchases, blah blah".

I ask again, although I know you will sidestep the question with some irreleveancy:

How many aircrafts presently in IAF's inventory had bribery involved?
 
.
What's your opinion about A 400M dude. a true strategic airlifter with 35+ tonnes of cargo which surely fills our heavy airlift needs na.

As I often said, I would prefer that class in IAF fleet too, be it in form of the A400, the AN70, or the Kawasaki XC2, but the A400 would be a good choice for us to complement the C17 in the and the MTA in strategic and tactical missions. Instead of the additionals C17, they should go for A400 MRTTs.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom