Re: India plans to buy 3 radar reconnaissance aircrafts A-50 in Russia

[sancho]

IAF not happy with IL-76 or 78 that why they don't want to Russian re fuller. ???

They are not happy with the Russian after sale support, not with the aircrafts itself. The tanker was not selected, because it offers clear disadvantages to modern tanker designs, at far higher operational costs.

 

[greatone]

I think you have confused Phalcon with Green pine.

Nopes, Phalcon is the whole system radar + aircraft; Green Pine is radar on the system.

 

[kaykay]

Nopes, Phalcon is the whole system radar + aircraft; Green Pine is radar on the system.

Greenpine is not supposed to be airborne. Just like Greenpine is ground based system, Phalcons are airbornes. 2 different systems.

 

[sancho]

Nopes, Phalcon is the whole system radar + aircraft; Green Pine is radar on the system.

EL/M-2080 Green Pine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Has nothing to do with the Phalcon radar

 

[Lord Of Gondor]

The Ex-CoAS Tyagi said the Il-76's are a burden to maintain.
He said that if it(The IAF) were an Airline,it'd become bankrupt!
He said the same about the MiG-29(Citing the German AF chief's comment about the sale of the German AF's MiG-29 to Poland for one Euro each).
He also mentioned that Russian aircraft are cheap to procure but cost a bomb to operate.
Source:Strat Post roundtable conference on 'Air Power'.
Any comments?
@sancho @Abingdonboy @Joe Shearer@Dillinger@Capt.Popeye
How good is the choice to go in for more Il's?
(especially under the 'strategic asset' tag)

 

[Joe Shearer]

The Ex-CoAS Tyagi said the Il-76's are a burden to maintain.
He said that if it(The IAF) were an Airline,it'd become bankrupt!
He said the same about the MiG-29(Citing the German AF chief's comment about the sale of the German AF's MiG-29 to Poland for one Euro each).
He also mentioned that Russian aircraft are cheap to procure but cost a bomb to operate.
Source:Strat Post roundtable conference on 'Air Power'.
Any comments?
@sancho @Abingdonboy @Joe Shearer@Dillinger
How good is the choice to go in for more Il's?
(especially under the 'strategic asset' tag)

What I know about Russian aircraft is that they were built to a cost profile, and were designed to fly a certain, pre-determined number of hours. They were not built like western aircraft, the Anglo-French, British or French aircraft, which have lasted for years. However, superhuman feats of maintenance by the Air Force crews kept these planes active and running far beyond their design life span.

Presumably the remark about cheap to procure but cost a bomb to operate is in this context. If we had procured them and operated them as designed and as long as designed, they would have been cheap to procure and cheap to operate. When we tried to overhaul them and refurbish them and enhance them to fly beyond that, costs started zooming up uncontrollably.

Moral: if you want to buy cheap and fly cheap, buy Russian and fly the aircraft only for the rated hours.
If you want to buy cheap only, buy Russian, but be prepared for frequent and high maintenance costs.
If you want to minimise lifetime cost, taking both procurement costs and maintenance costs, buy western.

 

[Lord Of Gondor]

Sir,any thoughts on using a Russian 'maintenance intensive' aircraft for such a crucial task?
IIRC,the AEWC&S aircraft are frequent flyers.
Plus,your comment holds true for the all British 'Sea Harrier' too.
The CO of the SH squadron mentions that the IN is the only operator of the Mark-1 SH and so,the spares are hard to come by and the man hours required to keep the a/c in the air is very high.
Edit:I also distinctively remember that the Sea Kings are(were?) hangar queens.

 

[kaykay]

Sir,any thoughts on using a Russian 'maintenance intensive' aircraft for such a crucial task?
IIRC,the AEWC&S aircraft are frequent flyers.
Plus,your comment holds true for the all British 'Sea Harrier' too.
The CO of the SH squadron mentions that the IN is the only operator of the Mark-1 SH and so,the spares are hard to come by and the man hours required to keep the a/c in the air is very high.
Edit:I also distinctively remember that the Sea Kings are(were?) hangar queens.

I am no expert like Joe sir but IMO AWACS are not meant to work day and night(except war) like other transport aircrafts so yes IL76 seems good for this role.

 

[Abingdonboy]

The Ex-CoAS Tyagi said the Il-76's are a burden to maintain.
He said that if it(The IAF) were an Airline,it'd become bankrupt!
He said the same about the MiG-29(Citing the German AF chief's comment about the sale of the German AF's MiG-29 to Poland for one Euro each).
He also mentioned that Russian aircraft are cheap to procure but cost a bomb to operate.
Source:Strat Post roundtable conference on 'Air Power'.
Any comments?
@sancho @Abingdonboy @Joe Shearer@Dillinger
How good is the choice to go in for more Il's?
(especially under the 'strategic asset' tag)

Everything he said is spot on- the Russian equipment is dirt cheap to procure but prohibitively expensive to maintain and fly over the course of their lives. Not just that Russian equipment isn't designed with ease of maintenance in mind (Western a/c on th either hand are- Mirage 2k and Rafale engines can be dropped out and replaced in a matter of a few hours and most of the Rafale's MRO activities can be carried out on site at their SQD bases- compared to Russian a/c this is lightyears ahead ). The average (for Western equipment) is 2-3 times the upfront unit cost will be spent on maintaining the system over its life span, for Russian equipment it is more like 4-5 times (if not more).

However much of the IL-76's issues have been addressed with the A-50 (upgraded engines and improved avionics) or at least to an acceptable level. I would have preferred the IAF opt for a Western wide bodied airliner (A330/787) but I guess evaluation and selection of such would have taken too long and for ease of maintenance it makes sense to go for another 3.

For the DRDO's AWACS (India) the system will be based on a Western wide-bodied airliner and not these Russian junks.

@sancho @Abingdonboy
IAF not happy with IL-76 or 78 that why they don't want to Russian re fuller. ???

The IAF is not happy with the life-cycle costs and high AOG rates of the ILs. The main reason the IAF went fort the A330 MRTT was the lower life cycle costs of the system (the 1st AAR bid not having taken into account life cycle costs merely upfront unit costs) not to mention the A330 MRTT is the better and more versatile platform.

I am no expert like Joe sir but IMO AWACS are not meant to work day and night(except war) like other transport aircrafts so yes IL76 seems good for this role.

They are meant to work day/night in all weather, but giving the nature of the systems night flying isn't such a challenge to them, or at least not much more of a challenge than faced by large commercial airliners flying at night. These aren't fighter jets who have to fly nap of the earth in the pitch black.

 

[Lord Of Gondor]

I am no expert like Joe sir but IMO AWACS are not meant to work day and night(except war) like other transport aircrafts so yes IL76 seems good for this role.

Hmm....
In any case,we do have just 3 MKIsed A50I's so each one would have a lot of work load.
In that context at least,the IAF is fu**ed.
And seeing @Abingdonboy 's post above(Different engines and other parts),it makes it even more confusing!
The IAF has to buy two different engine types for essentially the same a/c!

Everything he said is spot on- the Russian equipment is dirt cheap to procure but prohibitively expensive to maintain and fly over the course of their lives. Not just that Russian equipment isn't designed with ease of maintenance in mind (Western a/c on th either hand are- Mirage 2k and Rafale engines can be dropped out and replaced in a matter of a few hours and most of the Rafale's MRO activities can be carried out on site at their SQD bases- compared to Russian a/c this is lightyears ahead ). The average (for Western equipment) is 2-3 times the upfront unit cost will be spent on maintaining the system over its life span, for Russian equipment it is more like 4-5 times (if not more).

Thanks for the views!
I too believe that we should have MKIsed the 737.The civilian variant numbers in India itself could have inspired confidence.(Way to go IN )
Reading a bit on the Embraer(DRDO platform wala) and I'm impressed!
It has the best availability,cheapest to operate and for India the added positive of it being Brazilian!
@the emboldened bit:The MiG-29's RD's can be removed in less than half an hour.(Source:IAF MiG-29 documentary on the NGC-Hindi)
And the MiG-21's are possibly the best interceptors,still.(IIRC,they don't require specialised bunkers/well trained ground crew/they can take off within a few minutes of intimation)

 

[Abingdonboy]

And seeing @Abingdonboy 's post above(Different engines and other parts),it makes it even more confusing!
The IAF has to buy two different engine types for essentially the same a/c!

The IL-76s and 78s do have different engines to the A-50EIs but the 1st and 2nd batch (3+3) will have the same everything pretty much.

I too believe that we should have MKIsed the 737.The civilian variant numbers in India itself could have inspired confidence.(Way to go IN )

The 737 is too small for the Phalcon radome, it would have needed something like the A330, 767, 777 or 787.

 

[Lord Of Gondor]

The IL-76s and 78s do have different engines to the A-50EIs but the 1st and 2nd batch (3+3) will have the same everything pretty much.

That is 18+6(Gajraj+MKI resp.) with the old engines and 3/6(A-50's) with the newer engines!
There you have engine commonality going for a colossal toss!
Only the smaller consumables(Brake pads/tyres etc) could be the same.

 

[Abingdonboy]

That is 18+6(Gajraj+MKI resp.) with the old engines and 3/6(A-50's) with the newer engines!
There you have engine commonality going for a colossal toss!
Only the smaller consumables(Brake pads/tyres etc) could be the same.

It is what it is. but consider this all Il-76s will be out of service within a decade, the A-50s will be going on a LOT longer (20-30 years) so it's not a huge issue.

 

[gslv mk3]

There you have engine commonality going for a colossal toss!

But PS 90 is more recent high bypass turbofan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir,any thoughts on using a Russian 'maintenance intensive' aircraft for such a crucial task?
IIRC,the AEWC&S aircraft are frequent flyers.
Plus,your comment holds true for the all British 'Sea Harrier' too.
The CO of the SH squadron mentions that the IN is the only operator of the Mark-1 SH and so,the spares are hard to come by and the man hours required to keep the a/c in the air is very high.
Edit:I also distinctively remember that the Sea Kings are(were?) hangar queens.

The Sea King, if I remember, was in deadly trouble because of the embargo, as it never got parts in time.

The Sea Harrier has been phased out everywhere else.