IAF to Get 60 New Transport Planes; DRDO Combat Drone Project Approved
Nod for 60. 12 built by OEM, 48 assembled in India.
Nod for 60. 12 built by OEM, 48 assembled in India.
Medium Transport Aircraft (MTA) for IAF
- Thread starter Fatalis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- embraer c-390
48 to be built in India with 60% Indigenous Content. Ilyushin could partner up with HAL. DAC clearance soon.
There isn't clarity as to what will be the payload range. Business line is saying it will be based on the 2022 RFI. While, the print had said a new RFI was issued last year with a higher payload range. Business line says Indigenous content will be 50%, with ANI saying it could be 60%. Will have to wait for RFP.
Defence Acquisition Board clears ₹1 lakh crore plan for 60 IAF transport aircraft
Defence Acquisition Board clears ₹1 lakh crore proposal for 60 IAF medium transport aircraft, with Embraer and Lockheed Martin in the race.
Last edited:
Since we need to replace IL-76's capabilities, the A400M's payload matches that.
C-390 may find it difficult to operate out of Leh when carrying the Zorawar, and lacks pan-India range at full load. But I guess it still meets the minimum threshold for an MTA. Plus jet is better.
C-2 is the best of both worlds, but I guess it's not for sale.
A400M will be more expensive, so L-1 is not possible. The only way it wins is in a single vendor situation.
C-390 may find it difficult to operate out of Leh when carrying the Zorawar, and lacks pan-India range at full load. But I guess it still meets the minimum threshold for an MTA. Plus jet is better.
C-2 is the best of both worlds, but I guess it's not for sale.
A400M will be more expensive, so L-1 is not possible. The only way it wins is in a single vendor situation.
C-2 might be for sale, japan seems to be looking for an export win after they changed their rules about export of military tech and this might be their chance. Will also help build relationships btw the militaries.
I am content that IAF has now officially acknowledged that the MTA will replace the il76 capability too.
Personally I wish the C17 line re-starts. That will resolve a lot of issues.
C390 in the middle and c295 in the lower end. Will need to order maybe around 50-60 c295 while the rest An32 squadrons can switch to c390
If only Adani could be a risk taker. Buy and smuggle the men, blueprints and tools from Ukraine.
An178, An70 were promising items before 2014.
The last option would be obviously buy more new built Il76s. Personally not too keen on that.
C-17 is not possible unfortunately. But 10 of the older IL-76s will be upgraded to 60T and will remain in operation until both Russia and US create next gen replacements.
More C-130Js are definitely on the anvil.
If someone decides to sue, it will stop any possibility of exports. It's simpler to just buy new technologies or jointly develop them.
Il-476 isn't an option for MTA, it can at best supplement it. What we can do is add a few more and use them as transports + refuelers.
The C-17 with sea level capacity of ~70T can only land with about ~35T when operating at the Kargil airstrip:
A C-17 landed in Kargil, shrouded in secrecy. Here's why this is significant
A C-17 landed in Kargil, shrouded in secrecy. Here's why this is significant
theprint.in
Kargil airstrip is at ~2900m ASL compared to Leh airport that's above ~3200m ASL. So at Leh, the capacity will be even less.
A400M's nominal sea level capacity is 37T. I don't see it being able to deploy Zorawar (25T, maybe ~30T in up-armoured config) anywhere in Ladakh
So with that no longer a factor, I'd say C390 is probably our best bet. On a purely commercial & industrial standpoint, I'd say the C-130J-30 would have made the most sense as we already operate it & Tata already builds significant components locally. But like you said, a jet is probably the better bet for us overall, hence C390.
I just wish it came with non-American engines (IAE is majority-owned by P&W).
Hope we can at least leverage this somehow to get Embraer to open a regional jet FAL in India on more favourable terms than their current 200-jet RTA order requirement.
The C-17 with sea level capacity of ~70T can only land with about ~35T when operating at the Kargil airstrip:
A C-17 landed in Kargil, shrouded in secrecy. Here's why this is significant
A C-17 landed in Kargil, shrouded in secrecy. Here's why this is significant
Kargil airstrip is at ~2900m ASL compared to Leh airport that's above ~3200m ASL. So at Leh, the capacity will be even less.
A400M's nominal sea level capacity is 37T. I don't see it being able to deploy Zorawar (25T, maybe ~30T in up-armoured config) anywhere in Ladakh
So with that no longer a factor, I'd say C390 is probably our best bet. On a purely commercial & industrial standpoint, I'd say the C-130J-30 would have made the most sense as we already operate it & Tata already builds significant components locally. But like you said, a jet is probably the better bet for us overall, hence C390.
I just wish it came with non-American engines (IAE is majority-owned by P&W).
Hope we can at least leverage this somehow to get Embraer to open a regional jet FAL in India on more favourable terms than their current 200-jet RTA order requirement.
The C-17's payload limit is specific to the C-17.
Essentially, while the C-17 is limited to 37-40T or even 50T with aggressive fuel limits (when carrying 2 Zorawars or the T-90), the C-390 can carry 1 Zorawar with fuel limits too. C-2 and A400M can carry between 30 and 35T within the same constraints. In fact, C-2 and A400M can carry Zorawar while equipped with extra modular armor. Both are more modern designs meant for a tactical environment, unlike C17. That's also why the IL-76 can carry almost up to its payload limit, like the T-72, it's a more tactical design. The C-17 is payload limited due to size and mass.
So both C-2 and A400M surpass C-390 when it comes to payload to Leh. But the price tag is higher, so that's the winning metric here. The only constraint is the C-390 requires a bit more planning and optimum conditions due to the limit of its capabilities. If by the time we buy it, it gets some additional payload upgrade that would be great.
C-130J-30 cannot carry Zorawar. So it's pointless for MTA. We can still expect more orders for special mission purposes though.
Having inducted the C-295, the IAF's light tactical transport needs are covered pretty well. I'd say 40 A400Ms would provide better all round capability in the medium segment at a similar price point to 60-80 C-390s.
Though it has a higher upfront cost, A- 400M would need fewer sorties to deliver tanks and IFVs to high altitude regions, lprovides good rough field performance/lower FOD risk, courtesy of its turboprop engines and likely parts commonality/similar maintenance practices as the C-295.
After all, both ac are from the same mfgr, EADS CASA now Airbus.
Though it has a higher upfront cost, A- 400M would need fewer sorties to deliver tanks and IFVs to high altitude regions, lprovides good rough field performance/lower FOD risk, courtesy of its turboprop engines and likely parts commonality/similar maintenance practices as the C-295.
After all, both ac are from the same mfgr, EADS CASA now Airbus.
Being able to carry Zorawar =/= being able to carry Zorawar to Leh/Kargil.
But the altitude of Leh/Kargil is exactly where Zorawar is expected to be used. Carrying it to say, Gwalior AFS, is a nice to have option, but it serves no decisive tactical purpose.
Carrying Zorawar is not a requirement of the MTA at all - we're just hypothesizing about whether it can be used for that extracurricular role or not.
The minimum payload as per the RFI is only 18T. So carrying a 25T light tank was never the requirement...which means that while C-17 can do it in a jiffy for rapid build-up in an emergency, but typically speaking, air-mobility doesn't factor into how Zorawar is regularly expected to be deployed or used in Ladakh.
We'll just have to pre-position them via land routes.
The numbers I gave were for Leh. While the C-17 is restricted to 37-40T, the C-390 can carry 25T and A-400/C-2 can carry between 30-35T. All to Leh. To Gwalior, of course, full payload.
Zorawar is now a main requirement. The C-17 and IL-76 fleets are necessary for other missions, particularly tanks when supporting armored units.
Those don't sound like realistic numbers taking a realistic flight plan into account, especially for C-390. Can't fly on fumes just to prove a point. You need to have enough fuel to divert, return or hold in the air in case there's a wreck blocking the runway.
A plane with sea-level max capacity of 26T being able to deliver 25T to 3200m ASL is asking a lot - probably way outside any nominal operating parameters. And very unsafe.
Says who?
Cuz Tata is still competing with C-130J and nobody told them they chose the wrong product to offer.
Apart from being expensive , nowadays transport planes are Targeted with cheap drones in war..
I am for more number of platform than size.
If jet engines require less distance for take off.. then C390 is the only option.
Tata s continued involvement with C130 J seems going like Rafale ..
I am for more number of platform than size.
If jet engines require less distance for take off.. then C390 is the only option.
Tata s continued involvement with C130 J seems going like Rafale ..
I feel like the C-390 or C-130J. It's a win-win. Lockheed Martin is already starting MRO with TASL. In the long run, it makes total sense for them to transfer the sole production line to India because of the cost differential. The cost factor is not that high for Brazil and its Embraers only milking cow.
Vibe based requirements.
Is Tata the indian partner for both A400 and C-130?
Its a hard choice between the 3 platforms but arguably A400 is closest to IL-76, couple that by ordering more c-295s on the low end.
Its a hard choice between the 3 platforms but arguably A400 is closest to IL-76, couple that by ordering more c-295s on the low end.
We've the C-295 for the < 10 ton payload capacity.
We need one for between 10-30 ton which is the MTA .
Further we'd need one for 40-60 tons & a few for 70+ plus payload capacity.
The A-400 M is an in between kind given the way I think the IAF transport doctrine has been framed as detailed above if I've read them right.