Japan may allow India to produce parts for US-2 amphibious aircraft

[sancho]

Why exactly does India need these aircraft anyway? It's not like we've filled up our deficit in squadrons of fighter aircraft, bought off those 126 MMRCA aircraft and replaced our old HS-748s and AN-32s.

Japan, being a Nation of more than 6800 islands, does not seem to need any more than 5 of these aircraft. That should tell us about the futility of their purported utility.

We need these kind of aircrafts to support operations mainly around A&N, be it for ICG or IN, for SAR roles mainly. But you are right, the relation between the actual numbers that are needed and the costs is far beyond reasonable. The funny thing is, that Japan is considering to buy 17 x V22 Ospreys, for exactly the same reasons that I pointed out earlier, since they can support the Island with it, without propper air strips and even without the need to land on water.

 

[Indischer]

We need these kind of aircrafts to support operations mainly around A&N, be it for ICG or IN, for SAR roles mainly. But you are right, the relation between the actual numbers that are needed and the costs is far beyond reasonable. The funny thing is, that Japan is considering to buy 17 x V22 Ospreys, for exactly the same reasons that I pointed out earlier, since they can support the Island with it, without propper air strips and even without the need to land on water.

With the induction of our SSBNs imminent in the coming year or two, I also think that the IN feels that it needs the capability to offer any emergency aid to submarines at sea should they so need it. Maybe one area where the US-2 is definitely a great asset. But 15 such aircraft seems overkill and their price is way too exorbitant and our other needs way too pressing for us to be investing in these in such numbers.

 

[Echo_419]

Our baniya mentality is restricted to extracting every paise out of our fellow Indians, not outsiders. On most of these foreign deals, we've meekly surrendered to the terms even after protracted negotiations. Even the vodka-splurging Russians tricked us baniyas into shelling more than thrice the originally agreed amount in case of INS Vikramaditya.

Time to accept that we're penny wise pound foolish.

Who else would see a carrier & 45 mig-29K for just 2.1 billion dollars

 

[Sahasranama]

Still its not such a big lemon as its being made out to be. Its specifications are impressive.

Its a 47-tonne aircraft which can carry 18 tonnes of load, can take off from, or land on, a 300-metre stretch of water or land, its four giant engines needing just seven seconds to get airborne.

With a range of over 4,500 km, it can patrol areas 1,800 km away, and react to an emergency by landing 30 armed troops, even in 10-foot waves.

Considering Andaman Nicobar Island is 1200 km from chennai, its a useful aircraft to have.

Its a VERY unique aircraft to have especially if we can get it to be manufactured in India.

 

[sancho]

With the induction of our SSBNs imminent in the coming year or two, I also think that the IN feels that it needs the capability to offer any emergency aid to submarines at sea should they so need it. Maybe one area where the US-2 is definitely a great asset. But 15 such aircraft seems overkill and their price is way too exorbitant and our other needs way too pressing for us to be investing in these in such numbers.

Actually I would say we need more amphibious aircrafts under ICG in the SAR, given the vast coastline that we have, but we don't need to pay more than $100 million for that.

 

[Indischer]

Who else would see a carrier & 45 mig-29K for just 2.1 billion dollars

The Mig 29Ks weren't part of the Gorshkov deal. they were ordered separately in two deals worth 700 million and 1.2 billion respectively. So the total cost of the aircraft carrier and it's air complement adds up to 2.35B$+1.9B$ = 4.25B$. Quite a feat for us baniyas, innit?

 

[sancho]

Still its not such a big lemon as its being made out to be. Its specifications are impressive.

Its a 47-tonne aircraft which can carry 18 tonnes of load

True, for an amphibious aircraft it has good specs (although I think the 18t is the ammount of water it can carry in firefighting role. Don't think you can carry too much load in the small cabin and with the small door). But the question is, what specs are actually needed for the operational requirement and are the cost justifiable in relation to the requirements?
All we do with them is basic SAR and some utility transports, does it really need $100+ million aircrafts to do this?

 

[Sahasranama]

True, for an amphibious aircraft it has good specs (although I think the 18t is the ammount of water it can carry in firefighting role. Don't think you can carry too much load in the small cabin and with the small door). But the question is, what specs are actually needed for the operational requirement and are the cost justifiable in relation to the requirements?
All we do with them is basic SAR and some utility transports, does it really need $100+ million aircrafts to do this?

What that 18 ton load bearing capacity tells is me its capacity to carry torpedoes, depth charges, mines and cruise missiles. Not saying its easy, but in time japan is bound to scrap its peaceful constitution in view of Chinese aggression.

Japan does not do it because its constitution bars it from doing it. Hopefully India would be able to tinker with it to carry certain useful load.

Even otherwise it provides for remarkable surveillance capability and a safe platform to operate in the ocean, especially when engines fail or fuel run out and there are no landing strips nearby.

The cost is certainly very high and that is its only drawback. In every other way its remarkable.

 

[sancho]

What that 18 ton load bearing capacity tells is me its capacity to carry torpedoes, depth charges, mines and cruise missiles.

Not really, since it neither has hardpoints, nor the systems to detect and track targets and even this sale is possible only by making it a civil use aircraft without the possibility to add weapons. If we need a political deal with them, we should had bought the Kawasaki XC-2 transport aircrafts, which are also unarmed but would add far more use to our defence forces in war times. The US-2 is just a big waste of money (per unit and operational), for a very small use.

 

[Sahasranama]

Not really, since it neither has hardpoints, nor the systems to detect and track targets and even this sale is possible only by making it a civil use aircraft without the possibility to add weapons.

As I said, japan's constitution bars it from having hard points.

It already has a Radar for weather and surface surveillance.

In war time Dropping Mines and depth charges do not required any particular hard point. It can be done manually, though it is not recomended standard procedure.

In any case, as I said, Japan's constitution will again evolve in recognition of its changing hostile environment and its only a matter of time before they start arming themselves. We get the advantage of being ahead of the curve.

We already have C-17, C-130, AN 320 and Aveo replacement coming up. Also a dice MTA, why do you want to add Kawasaki C-2 to that list.

At least the US-2 brings a unique capability.

One other thing that came to my notice is that the US-2 uses the same engine as the C-130J . That should make maintenance and associated supply chain much easier.

 

[sancho]

We already have C-17, C-130, AN 320 and Aveo replacement coming up. Also a dice MTA, why do you want to add Kawasaki C-2 to that list.

At least the US-2 brings a unique capability.

Because we have too little aircrafts that can carry vehicles and oversized loads like howitzers or SAM systems, the littile number of C17s won't do the job even with 6 highly expensive additions. If we want to prepare for a 2 front war, we need to be able to transport meaningful equipment in and around India, with a fleet of good aircrafts and that's where the XC-2 or A400 offer the most advantages at lower costs.

The US-2 has nothing unique, it does what every amphibious aircraft can do, the only difference is size or some better performance, just like others have their advantages too.

 

[Sahasranama]

Because we have too little aircrafts that can carry vehicles and oversized loads like howitzers or SAM systems, the littile number of C17s won't do the job even with 6 highly expensive additions. If we want to prepare for a 2 front war, we need to be able to transport meaningful equipment in and around India, with a fleet of good aircrafts and that's where the XC-2 or A400 offer the most advantages at lower costs.

The US-2 has nothing unique, it does what every amphibious aircraft can do, the only difference is size or some better performance, just like others have their advantages too.

For that we need to buy lighter guns, not heavier aircraft's.

There are very few Amphibious aircrafts anywhere in the world that compares with US-2. Certainly non with better performance.

 

[sancho]

For that we need to buy lighter guns, not heavier aircraft's.

Wrong, it's not the weight that is the issue, but the size of the vehicle and the cargo hold size. Same reason why a T90 doesn't fit in the latest IL 76 aircrafts anymore, even if they have a payload of 50 to 60t, but the cargo hold is simply not wide enough, while it is in the C17. The same is the problem for other mentioned vehicles and systems with oversize. Neither the Avro replacements, not the C130J or MTAs will be able to carry such loads and most of the C17s will be tasked with strategic transport roles, which leaves maybe half a dozen aircrafts for such transports within India, far too less to propperly support operations of such a big military like India has.

 

[Echo_419]

Wrong, it's not the weight that is the issue, but the size of the vehicle and the cargo hold size. Same reason why a T90 doesn't fit in the latest IL 76 aircrafts anymore, even if they have a payload of 50 to 60t, but the cargo hold is simply not wide enough, while it is in the C17. The same is the problem for other mentioned vehicles and systems with oversize. Neither the Avro replacements, not the C130J or MTAs will be able to carry such loads and most of the C17s will be tasked with strategic transport roles, which leaves maybe half a dozen aircrafts for such transports within India, far too less to propperly support operations of such a big military like India has.

what are the Russians doing then

 

[sancho]

what are the Russians doing then

The same that the US or NATO does, use bigger transport aircrafts like the AN 124 or C5, that also can carry more than just a single tank.