Read the following text and answer briefly.

Transport Aircraft for IAF - Page 67 - Bharat Rakshak
Transport Aircraft for IAF
Re: Transport Aircraft for IAF
Postby abhik » 17 Nov 2014 05:55
+1, Air India recently sold their entire fleet of Boeing 777s.
afaik the A330 MRTT does not make any structural mods or add anything internally in cargo or passenger cabin. it just relies on the intrinsic 110 tons of fuel. external refueling pods are added and internally the control station and cameras for the operator i guess.
so its a easy conversion from a passenger layout to the AAR mode - mostly ripping out the passenger cabin of all extra stuff and retuning the FCS for any changes in COG.
this should have been pursued years ago
the IL78 adds a palletized drum tank system inside its cargo bay due to paucity of intrinsic fuel but it can be removed and a/c converted back to cargo hauling or send off to russia for Phalcon structural mods if we want it that way. they will however need to change engines to PS90 as they have the old engines
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images ... 7/5616.jpg
the RAF is already gone that route in 2011
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2011 ... -Refuelers
LONDON - Airbus Military has delivered the first of 12 A330-200 airliners due to be converted into in-flight refueling planes for the British Royal Air Force by Cobham Aviation Services.
The aircraft, part of an order of 14 jets, will be modified with aerial refueling pods and other equipment at Cobham's newly refurbished facility in Bournemouth, England. The first two aircraft have already been converted by Airbus in Spain.
The multirole tanker aircraft are being provided to the RAF under a private finance initiative service deal led by Airbus parent EADS.
Seven of the planes will be operated full time by the RAF. The remainder will be available for lease in the third-party market, with the proviso that they can be returned to British military service to meet any surge in demand.
All of the aircraft, to be known as the Voyager in RAF service, will be fitted with two wing-mounted refueling pods, while half the fleet will also be fitted for, but not necessarily with, a center-line mounted unit. The refueling units are being supplied by Cobham.
The first aircraft will become operational in a passenger and freight transport role by the end of this year to start relieving pressure on the RAF's hard-pressed assets.
Despite the increasing fragility of current RAF in-flight refueling operations, the new capability is not contracted to start being used in this role until 2015.
All 14 Voyagers are scheduled to be available for RAF operations by the middle of the decade. The A330 will replace the increasingly ancient Tristar and VC-10 refuelers now in service.
Push the 6 Il-476 from refueler to AEW duty. Phalcon them up
Not sure if that is a good path to follow. For one they all should be sent to pasture in about 8 years. Then if the are to be phalconed up - the requires major structural changes. Not worth that cost.
Whatever happened ot the two new ones that were supposed ot be ordered?
the IL78 can be easily converted back to IL76 cargo hauling. only the fuel tank inside cargo bay needs removal...infact that was even mentioned in initial days as swing role fuel/cargo.
Postby Cybaru » 17 Nov 2014 07:55
I am talking about the new il78 that we ordered recently in refueling role. Sorry for the mix up. They are the same platform, that I why i used 476 or 76 to identify it.
777 carries more internal fuel than the A330. We suck!
From the KC-777 program.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... kc-777.htm
"the KC-777 would be 209 feet long with a wingspan of 212 feet, 7 inches. That's the same size as the 777-200LR commercial jet. The KC-777 would be able to carry far more fuel, cargo and passengers than either the KC-767 or the Airbus A330 tanker. The KC-767 offers more operational flexibility, while the KC-777 would be better suited for long-range strategic missions in which more cargo needs to be delivered. The KC-777 would be able to carry more than 350,000 pounds (160,000 kilograms) of fuel and offload more than 220,000 pounds (100,000 kg) of it on a mission of 500 nautical miles (900 kilometers). On the other hand, the KC-767 can lift off with more than 200,000 pounds (90,000 kg) of fuel and offload more than 130,000 pounds (60,000 kg) in a similar mission. The KC-777 would be able to deliver 200 percent more fuel after flying 1,000 nautical miles than older Air Force KC-135s. The KC-777 could carry up to 37 pallets of cargo, compared to the 19 pallets for the KC-767."
Postby Cosmo_R » 18 Nov 2014 04:31
Viv S wrote: From Ajai Shukla's article -
HAL points out that, since each Avro flies barely 350 hours every year, most of them have a residual life of about 80,000 hours. In a request for information (RFI) released on August 15, HAL has proposed replacing the aircraft’s engines (Rolls Royce Dart) with “modern fuel efficient engines”.
So, the IAF's Avros have a residual life of 228 years at the current rate of usage. Ain't life grand?
At zero up time, it could reach infinity.
Relax Cy. Kc777 has no client. Usaf is going with kc767 and almost everyone else with a330.
We don't have the number of heavies and long missions of usaf else I would say convert an124.
KC777 will be extremely expensive given the demand/backlog for the 777 and the 777x. Any buyer would have to virtually pay for the increase in capacity.
I think the 767 production line is closed. so the proposed KC767 Boeing is supposed to deliver 18 by 2017..that can be managed from mothballed and cargo hauler airframes on the market.
but to meet the final order of around 180 will they not have to open the production line unless such a huge number were available on the market?
I do get the spider feel this program again will be cancelled in favour of a in-production plane like the 777X ?
I wasn't suggesting we get the KC777. All I was doing was comparing what possibly the 777 could offload compared to A330. It carries 171000 liters of fuel versus 130000 liters that the A330 carries. If we had older 777s in stock, we could have quite easily converted them to this config. The cost to us would be miniscule just the refurbishing cost vs acquiring a new type.
Singha wrote: I think the 767 production line is closed. so the proposed KC767 Boeing is supposed to deliver 18 by 2017..that can be managed from mothballed and cargo hauler airframes on the market.
The Line is open, they have a backlog of around 50 (All Fed ex), with Fed Ex placing a small order this year. The Pegasus order is for all new builds, and so will the follow on order. The only reason for any nation to buy the 767 tanker is going to be because of the ability to hard bargain with Boeing given that the commercial future of the 767 is dead. This also allows a potential buyer to purchase cheap spares from the open market, or club its logistical and inventory purchase with that of the USAF. Other than that and perhaps availability (which would be doubtful once USAF pushes through a larger order) there is really no technical reason to purchase the this tanker over the A330 which by all accounts is a superior tanker in addition to being a much much better airliner in general.
IAI is doing conversations for the 767 and its called the 767 MMTT
http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/FILES/1/38471.pdf
Cybaru wrote: I wasn't suggesting we get the KC777. All I was doing was comparing what possibly the 777 could offload compared to A330. It carries 171000 liters of fuel versus 130000 liters that the A330 carries. If we had older 777s in stock, we could have quite easily converted them to this config. The cost to us would be miniscule just the refurbishing cost vs acquiring a new type.
The cost of converting a commercial airliner to a tanker, certifying it and running a full fledged test program is by no means small. There is absolutely no justification for that sort of cost over and above the capability that that A330 provides. If it were a certified and tested conversion, that would be a different matter.
Postby Kartik » 21 Nov 2014 12:27
Cybaru wrote:
Why? If the airframe can handle more flight hours, why not?
because it is a very very old airframe as is. Maintenance spares won't be available easily even as of now, then imagine how it'll be 20-30 years from now.. and as things stood anyway, the HS-748 offered very little in terms of payload and range versus a C-295 class aircraft. The C-295 offers a very credible light transport, whereas the HS-748's role in the IAF was more akin to a transport trainer and for communication duties with little operational use. Having seen a dozen or so HS-748s parked at Vadodara airport all through my childhood, I never once saw one in the air. They just seemed to be stored out in the open. Upon asking an IAF transport pilot who was my friend's father, he remarked "zyaada kaam ke nahi hain yeh".
Why would you expend more capital on what is essentially an obsolete airframe, even if theoretically it had not yet reached its service life? You'd have to re-engine it, put new avionics on board and even that wouldn't suffice for para dropping requirements..it was operationally never suitable for para dropping, which is an important mission for transport aircraft and had deficiencies in hot and high climes as well.
Unfortunately, the 748 was never meant to be a military transport. At the request of IAF, its door was enlarged to enable larger cargo items to be loaded and to allow para dropping without hitting the tail plane. However, to load a jeep in it, a 30-ft long ramp was required. The jeep would drive in and insert its front wheels into the aircraft. Then it had to be manually lifted and turned to get it in. Unloading it was just as difficult. Para dropping of troops or cargo even from the aircraft with the enlarged door was considered too dangerous with the risk of hitting the tail plane. The aircraft's performance at hot and high airfields was hopelessly inadequate. Eventually IAF acquired the tail-loading An-32s which were powered specifically for IAF's need for operating in the Himalayas.
BRF article -Avro in IAF service
Now unless you want to overcome all these through a costly, time consuming engineering re-design program, that too without access to original documents since this airplane was designed in the 1960s, there is no question of keeping them going for another 40 years. By which time the original design would be over 80 years old and with no one on earth but the IAF as an operator and HAL as the agency supporting it. Hardly a situation anyone would want.
abhik wrote: +1, Air India recently sold their entire fleet of Boeing 777s.
Only 5 of the Boeing 777-200LR, to Etihad Airways, which IMO was a bad decision..they could have reconfigured the airplanes with just 2 classes and continued to fly them to the US, non-stop.
The remaining 3 777-200LR were offered for lease but are still a part of AI's fleet since they didn't find any takers. This particular model hardly sold much and was developed for ultra-long range flights..it was the least successful 777 model and clearly AI goofed up on the configuration by going for these in place of the 300ER. The economics however didn't make too much sense for AI eventually.
there are 13 777-300ER as a part of their fleet ahd their economics is much better.
Govt. to decide tomorrow on whether to go ahead and allow the IAF to verify the technical details of the C-295 bid by Tata-Airbus instead of scrapping the tender due to single vendor situation.
The government will decide on Saturday whether to press ahead with the Rs 13,000 crore mega project for the private sector to supply 56 medium transport aircraft to the IAF despite only a single bidder, the Tata-Airbus consortium, being in the fray.
Though the defence acquisitions council (DAC) chaired by Manohar Parrikar will take the final decision, MoD sources on Tuesday said the "emerging dominant view" is that green signal should be given to the crucial project designed to promote Indian private sector's entry into the domestic aerospace arena with foreign collaboration.
"The Tata-Airbus technical and commercial bid is a credible offer submitted in a competitive environment. The other seven contenders backed out for one reason or the other," said a source.
IAF has now sought the clearance of the DAC -- the first such meeting to be chaired by Parrikar after becoming defence minister on November 10 -- to begin technical evaluation of the C-295 aircraft offered by Airbus Defence & Space and Tata Advanced Systems.
Though it has become a single-vendor situation, the DAC can approve it if it wants as per existing procurement procedures. Of the eight foreign aviation majors that got the global tender, American Boeing and Lockheed-Martin as well as Brazilian Embraer said they did not manufacture the class of aircraft being sought by IAF.
Refusing to take part in the tender, Russian Rosoboronexport said it wanted a fresh design and development project. Antonov of Ukraine wanted yet another extension of the bid submission deadline due to the ongoing conflict in Crimea. Swedish Saab said it had shut down its assembly line for such aircraft.
Then, Alenia Aermacchi was linked to Italian conglomerate Finmeccanica, which has been slapped with "a partial ban" after the infamous VVIP helicopter scandal. "All this left only the European consortium Airbus. The DAC will have to take a call since re-tendering may lead to the same situation," said the source.
Incidentally, it was the Modi government's first DAC in July -- then headed by Arun Jaitley - which revived the Avro replacement project after it was put on hold by the UPA-2 regime last year due to strong opposition from the powerful PSU lobby and ministers like Praful Patel, as reported by TOI earlier.
Apart from the critical need to encourage the private sector to enter defence production in a big way, especially in the aerospace arena where Hindustan Aeronautics enjoys a monopoly, its felt the defence PSU's order books are already overflowing with projects.
Fingers crossed. Hopefully sense will prevail.
Why was lr got? Er is capable of Dubai to sfo nonstop.
Lr is overkill unless we want Delhi to Peru .
Singha wrote: Why was lr got? Er is capable of Dubai to sfo nonstop.
they wanted it for non-stop routes from India to the west coast of the US. But with fuel prices going higher and with the lower seat count on the 777-200LR, the seat mile costs grew too high. A 3 class configuration only made matters worse. A higher density configuration with more economy class seats and just 12-15 Business class seats would have been better perhaps, especially if they didn't have very high First Class load factors.
LR and ER is better if you want to have a better payload down below for long haul. Ultimately, the best bet is going to come form the 787's that take a fewer people (so you can do the longer routes) with still a competitive CASM, and the B and F class folks will pay good money for newer aircraft.
Postby Kartik » 04 Dec 2014 12:55
Lets see if there is any forward movement on the stalled MTA project once Putin arrives in New Delhi
Major defence deals to be signed during Putin-Modi summit
In this connection, it is expected that during the summit, Russia and India may ultimately resolve several long-delayed agreements on military-technical cooperation projects between the two countries and sign them finally for their implementation. These agreements, above all, include joint Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project and joint development of Multi-role Transport Aircraft (MTA).
A final deal on FGFA for production has been delayed because the Indian Air Force (IAF) did not approve the design and work-share. Now Russia has reportedly agreed that the jet would be a two-seat design, not a one-seater. India’s work-share would also be increased from18 percent to 25 percent, and even up to 40-50 percent in the near future, in view of the steady development of the Indian aviation industry.
Defence and SecurityAccording to the agreement, India’s stealth air-to-air missile “Astra” along with Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missile will be mounted on the FGFA.
The preliminary design agreement on FGFA had been signed in 2010 between Indian HAL and Russian Sukhoi Design Bureau to build the jet for the use by both countries. The final design contract was to be signed in July-August 2012. But the deadline has already passed. According to the Indian media reports, under the programme, India is expected to build 200 fighter jets at the cost of $30 billion.
FGFA is not the only Indo-Russia joint project. The two countries also signed an agreement on the joint development of MTA in 2007, based on Il-214 Russian plane. The cost of the $600 million project is being equally shared by the two countries. The MTA, when developed, will have ready market for 205 aircraft - 45 for the Indian Air Force, 100 for the Russian Air Force, and 60 more for exporting to friendly countries. The international market for MTA is estimated at 390 planes. Under the agreement, thirty percent of the annual production of planes could be exported to third countries.
The MTA was expected to go in service with the Russian and Indian Air Forces in 2015. But the project faced a number of problems, delaying the development of the MTA. The project got into rough weather after India felt there was nothing much for Indian engineers and scientists to do in the design and development of the MTA.
However, all the issues related to the project were resolved with the Russians when the HAL undertook to carry out design and development of its work-share of MTA at Aircraft R&D Centre at Bangalore. Russian Ilyushin Design Bureau and the Irkut Corporation and HAL are participating in the project. The first flight is expected to take place in 2017-18.
The MTA would replace the AN- 32 aircraft being used by the IAF. It will be used for both cargo and troop transportation, para-drop and air drop of supplies, including low-altitude parachute extraction system.
BrahMos missile exports a challenging proposition
Another key deal expected to be signed during the summit, is for the development of “BrahMos mini missile” by the Indo-Russian joint venture BrahMos Aerospace which manufactures supersonic cruise missile. BrahMos’ new CEO Sudhir Mishra recently said he was hopeful that a deal to develop the mini version of the missile will be signed during Putin’s summit with Modi.
“We are hoping to sign a tripartite agreement between DRDO, NPOM lab and BrahMos Aerospace during the planned visit of Russian President in December,” Mishra said.
He said that the new missile will have a speed of 3.5 mach and carry a payload of 300 km up to a range of 290 km. In size, it will be about half of the present missile, which is around 10 metres long. The missile can be integrated with different platforms, including submarines and FGFA. It is planned to be inducted into service by 2017.
Modi-Abbott to upgrade defence ties
A new dimension:
In a first, India and Australia will also set up a mechanism to discuss “synergies in integrating defence system”, including research and development cooperation on integrating defence equipment that both countries currently purchase, for example, U.S’s C-17 Globemaster III, according to officials.
^^That report about MTA is fishy. First it says that India has nothing to learn from an existing design (duh) and then says the issue has been resolved. How? Next it says India's need is 45 planes to replace over 100 An-32s. It also speculates about the export potential which may be nonexistent unless we sell it for peanuts.
This is a scam which only aims to create screwdriver jobs at HAL, stall any attempt to introduce private players into the aviation market and continue the Russian gravy train. My fear is the Russkies have our testiments in a firm grip with key components of Brahmos, nuke subs, Su30mki etc and we may be jerked around.
(They need to be more definitive about "MTA" - Multirole vs. Medium)
The Indians had not selected an engine (among other things) for the MTA with the Russians. Perhaps that has been resolved now.
On export numbers, IIRC, it was the responsibility of Rosoboronexport. ?????
Kartik wrote: The MTA would replace the AN- 32 aircraft being used by the IAF. It will be used for both cargo and troop transportation, para-drop and air drop of supplies, including low-altitude parachute extraction system.
Pardon my ignorance. The Avro and An-32 have different upgrade paths. How are the replacements for these venerable aircraft different in terms of use cases in IAF. Cannot one platform replace both these types? (Either MTA or C-295)
In this case, I feel they should have just gone with screwdrivergiri (production tech) and got to market first. There is no jet-powered transporter in this range! Just license produce the IL-214 with the PD-14M, glass cockpit and a state-of-the-art COTS avionics computer.
In my view, it was a low hanging fruit, which they completely messed up! They could have learnt on how to adopt the plane for the 160-200 seater.
indranilroy wrote: They could have learnt on how to adopt the plane for the 160-200 seater.
Yes, the MTA project should fold the Avro, An-32 and the regional transport role and become a conversion project rather a development one. The driving numbers will come from the regional transport (thousands in India itself) rather than the Avro or medium transport roles (max 300 between them). This changes the ball game and introduces all kinds of possibilities. But I'm pretty sure that the Il-214/MTA is not the way to go because it will take a decade or more to arrive. A good possibility was another Antonov, the An-148 but it has some mechanical glitches apparently besides being bogged down in the Ukraine mess. Maybe the Russians can "relocate" the aircraft to Russia? The other possibility is the BAe-146 which is ironically another Avro. We should remember that both the HS-748 "Avro" and An-32 were regional airliners that were converted to military use, not the other way around. HAL or a private firm will pick up a lot of experience in the conversion process itself.
The Sukhoi Superjet is already in production/orders,with over 100+ for Russian and intl. customers. It is ideal for regional transport,perfect for flights to smaller Tier-2/3 cities from metros. If we really want a regional jet this is the fastest way toi go,we can set up a manufacturing unti here for the same at an HAL unit.
Postby shaun » 05 Dec 2014 15:24
Its an international projects, with components outsourced from different international vendors . Over 30 foreign partnership companies are involved in the project and partly financed by Italy.
Sukhoi is good for passenger use but wont be suitable for military, rough field use. The shoulder wing jets like the An-148 have slower speeds and better ground clearance. The Bae-146 was usedby Druk Air in Bhutan so it should do OK in the ALGs. If we don't fold our requirements then we should go with something like the Superjet which we will at least be able to make in India and also modify to stretched versions. Unless we have a clear path to operational clearance within 10 yrs for the RTA project vetted by our top industrial houses, it is pie-in-the-sky and should be dropped. The RTA will be big enough to keep 2-3 factories humming and leapfrog our capabilities. If we don't get our act together almost immediately, we will miss the boat, just like our trainer fiascos.
I don't think Superjet fits into our scheme of things. We should think as a country and see to it that our programs don't trample on each other.
First, the more certain ones:
1. Mahindras NM5 and Airvans can care of the low-cost but sturdy 5,8,10 and 18-seater section.
2. Saras had such great potential for being the high performance 14-18 seater. But I have almost given up on it. This section will most probably be taken up by the Tata-built Do-228 NG.
3. We should standardize the C-295 as the Avro/An-32 replacement and create a 70-80 seater variant out of it.
And then the more wishful ones:
1. If the RTA is going to be a jet, then make it a 100-130 seater. I don't expect the first prototype to take the sky before 2025. I feel it is too big of a jump where we don't even have a base. With LCA, at least we were at least license producing other fighters.
4. Building on the IL-214, the MTA was on a more sure footing. But, I can't see how the first prototype can to take to the sky before 2019(more than 10 years since MTAL was formed)! If the transport plane materializes, then one can imagine making a civilian 150-200 seater version of the same. But this program needs a push. Will Putin's visit be able to galvanize this into the next symbol of Indo-Russian cooperation. Probably not!
Postby GeorgeWelch » 12 Dec 2014 23:39
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-de ... -1.2144472
The Defence Department intends to purchase a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, a large military transport plane that comes with a price tag of just under $200 million, CTV News has learned
It's difficult to get a good count, but by some sources, if this and the 4 Australia planes go through, there will only be 5 left.
X-Posting from FGFA thread.
Despite Putin’s visit, two pacts on military aircraft still in doldrums
President Vladimir Putin may have come and gone but stalemate largely persists over two key long-pending India-Russian defence projects, the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) and military multirole transport aircraft (MTA).
The deadlock over the MTA, which were initially envisaged to gradually replace IAF's ageing fleet of the medium-lift AN-32 aircraft, seems to be much more serious. India now wants to ascertain the cost viability of the twin-engine transport aircraft in comparison to similar planes available in the market.
There are also questions about the MTA's "predicted timelines for delivery" as well as its failure to meet the high-altitude requirements, which need to be answered before India even thinks of inking the full-scale contract for the project, said sources.
Postby Gyan » 13 Dec 2014 12:29
indranilroy wrote: I don't think Superjet fits into our scheme of things. We should think as a country and see to it that our programs don't trample on each other.
1. Mahindras NM5 and Airvans can care of the low-cost but sturdy 5,8,10 and 18-seater section. Righto
2. Saras had such great potential for being the high performance 14-18 seater. But I have almost given up on it. This section will most probably be taken up by the Tata-built Do-228 NG. We need future extended variants of presurrized aircraft like 30 seater Saras and say 30 seater unpressurized Do-328 NG.
3. We should standardize the C-295 as the Avro/An-32 replacement and create a Civilian turboprop pressurized cabin 70-80 seater variant out of it.
1. If the RTA is going to be a jet, then make it a 100-130 seater. Agreeeeeed I don't expect the first prototype to take the sky before 2025. I feel it is too big of a jump where we don't even have a base. With LCA, at least we were at least license producing other fighters. Though I think that we should participate in Russian MS-21 and also the wide body follow on.
4. Building on the IL-214, the MTA was on a more sure footing. But, I can't see how the first prototype can to take to the sky before 2019(more than 10 years since MTAL was formed)! If the transport plane materializes, then one can imagine making a civilian 150-200 seater version of the same. Though I think that we should participate in Russian MS-21 and also the wide body follow on. But this program needs a push. Will Putin's visit be able to galvanize this into the next symbol of Indo-Russian cooperation. Probably not!
Absence of any specifics on Sukhoi Superjet, MS-21, Wide body aircraft, Mi-38, MRTA, FGFA, even after Putin visit is very disappointing.
FlightGlobal- Boeing sitting on 8 unsold C-17s
By: Dan ParsonsWashington DCSource: Flightglobal.com
This story is sourced from Flightglobal.com 12 hours agoBoeing has sold two more C-17 transports to an undisclosed customer, but it will likely end the year with eight unsold white tails.
There are 10 Boeing C-17 airlifters in various stages of assembly at the company’s Long Beach, California, production facility.
Two of the aircraft are spoken for by an unnamed customer, Boeing says. Boeing is trying to sell off the other eight white tails, which will be the last produced before the factory is shuttered sometime in the summer of 2015.
The 279th – and final – C-17 fuselage will be mated to its wings in January or February, programme spokeswoman Tiffany Pitts tells Flightglobal. The operation is California’s last remaining aircraft production line and the lone widebody military aircraft production line in the USA, according to Boeing.
At least two countries – Australia and Canada – have publicly announced an intention to purchase a C-17, though neither factor into Boeing’s future planning, Pitts says. Until contracts are finalised, the number available remains eight, she says. The Royal Canadian Air Force already has four C-17As, according to Flightglobal’s World Air Forces 2014 directory.
Canadian news outlets reported earlier in December that the air force would buy one C-17 with money left over at the end of 2015.
Australia is further along with its bid to purchase C-17s. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency in November announced Australia was approved to buy up to four C-17s and support equipment for $1.6 billion.
Boeing has plans to store any unsold C-17s following closure of its production line, Pitts says.
“I’m hoping they all will be sold before then, but we’ve had plans in place for a very long time to store and maintain the aircraft if that doesn’t happen,” she says.
the IAF will need to factor in the demand vs availability of C-17s and stock up with a follow-on order quickly. The initial plan to have 16 C-17s may not fructify, considering that there are just 8 left now, with Australia having announced plans to buy 4 more.
why are they closing the line if it has demands ???
Real estate sales tactics probably. Buy now last 8 3bhk flats Saar.
krishnan wrote: why are they closing the line if it has demands ???
It requires 3 years lead time to order raw materials/parts from all of its sub-vendors. All current firm orders have been fulfilled, and no new orders have come. Anticipating a need for a few more aircrafts, they produced 10 extra (self-funded) units before production winded down. Bottom line is they don't make money keeping an idle plant around with all its employees and infrastructure. At most what they will likely do is keep a limited infrastructure around for a few more years in case a bunch of new orders come. They can then see if it makes business sense to re-open the plant.
Postby Aditya_V » 17 Dec 2014 12:19
Wish this can be brought to the notice of Journos/ Poster when slamming LCA/ Arjun and other indigenous projects. If there are no orders there will be no efficiency.
Dec 10, 2014 :: Russia launches Il-76MDM upgrade programme
Russia's Ilyushin has started to upgrade a first Russian Air Force (VVS) Ilyushin Il-76MD 'Candid' military transport aircraft to Il-76MDM standard, company officials have told IHS Jane's . The main features of the upgrade include refurbished engines and upgraded avionics.
The modernisation is being conducted at the VVS's Military Transport Aviation (MTA) maintenance facility based at the Ilyushin division in Zhukovsky city near Moscow.
A senior Ilyushin official told IHS Jane's that the upgrade of the first aircraft will be finished in 18 months. Subsequent aircraft will take less time to complete the process, however. When the modernisation is finished the initial Il-76MDM will undergo state trials. The upgrade process for subsequent aircraft will begin when the trials programme is completed.
IHS Jane's was previously told by a VVS senior official that the modernisation of 41 MTA Il-76MDs is planned by 2020. While the Il-76MDM upgrade retains the old D-30KP engine (compared with the PS-90A engine equipping the new Il-76MD-90A/Il-476), the modernisation effort should match the aircraft's onboard electronics with those of the newbuild Il-76MD-90A. This and other efforts mean the cost of modernising the Il-76MD to Il-76MDM is only a third of that of a newbuild Il-76MD-90A.
The existing D-30KP engines are to be enhanced to increase their service life. The overall aircraft's service life will be extended by 15 years.
The upgrade works are planned to be conducted in an aviation repair factory or in the MTA's aircraft maintenance facility. As a result, the Ulyanovsk-based Aviastar-SP plant, which is building the Il-76MD-90A, is not involved in the Il-76MD to Il-76MDM modernisation programme.
Users browsing this forum: Jaeger, Manish_Sharma, rajkumar, VikramA and 43 guests

Now, answer the following question based on the above text, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Besides the Boeing C-17, what other transport aircraft is the IAF considering for acquisition?
Answer:



Answer: The IAF is considering the acquisition of the Airbus A330 MRTT (Multi-Role Tanker Transport) besides the Boeing C-17.