Medium Transport Aircraft (MTA) for IAF

[Parthu]

An-32's design limitations are specific to its time.

As I said, the C-390 can carry Zorawar to Leh. It's the same as how IL-76 can carry the T-72 to Leh. Both at 95% of their payload.

As I keep saying, training & proving operations are not a regular deployment operation. Do read about the number of hoops the IL-76 crews had to jump through in order to fulfill that airlift.

And that's when you're trying to do what you can with what you have - nobody in their right mind will seek that for a new procurement.

C-130J can't replace the IL-76's requirement.

It's not likely to win either way. We won't put all our transport aircraft eggs in the American basket.

The new IL-76 replacement and Zorawar requirements were part of the new RFI/RFP from 2025.

For the slow folk out there, the point of Zorawar is it eliminates the C-130J.

IL-214/276 is not operational, so won't make it in the tender either. They are both the Gripen E/F-16 of the MTA.

This is all part of the "Thinking is a privilege" saga.

C-2 can achieve T1, C-390 will be L1. Knowing this requires thinking.

The main reasons why C-2 will be T-1, its cruise speed is faster than the C-17, which allows it to fly in civilian air routes, unlikethe C-17. It can operate from very short runways, less than 800m. It carries 10T extra payload to twice the distance as the C-390. And it's designed for high altitude conditions too.

C-390 is a smaller and cheaper C-2.

C-2 is not a serious contender due to Japan's own political reasons & lack of clear export mechanism. It might also be politically unwise to buy from them, given they might backtrack support over irrational reasons later.

Only C-390, A400M & C-130J-30 are the realistic options.

Oof, the amount of effort I need to put in even when stating the obvious. I now have immense respect for primary school teachers, especially in special schools, for the amount of effort put into a deadend student with no future hope of reaching full development.

I'm feeling the same way when you say that just because a Boeing 707 airframe can theoretically sustain 36-48 hours continuous airborne time (with multiple refuels), therefore every E-3 sortie can & must be made to last 36-48 hours.

 

[_Anonymous_]

The Russians will probably offer the under development Ilysuhin Il-276, which, once upon a time, was supposed to be the UAC-HAL MTA replacement for the aging An-32 fleet. It's MTOW is 20-tonnes, so like the C-130J, it can't carry the Zorawar either.

I've a feeling this MTA tender is another smoke screen . For what exactly , I can't tell. Or perhaps it could well be a case of the IAF wanting to have a closer look at the other transporters namely the C-2 & the A-400 M .

The IAF previously had a doctrine of Last Mile Connectivity which was fulfilled by the An-32 .
However since max load carried by the An-32 was < 7000 with the next transporter being the C+130 J , it was observed that the latter was over worked resulting in wear & tear besides more OPEX .

Hence the C-295 for light transport which is an upgrade over the An-32. Now some genius has combined the requirements of both a regional transporter & the replacement of the Il-76 into one meaning from 10-40 tons we're going to use one class of Transporters.

This makes about as much sense as the MMRCA 2.0 tender for SE & TE FAs . We know how that one turned out irrespective of the usual suspect shilling for it since the RFI was announced undergoing contortions explaining it here suffering repeated spasms as a result reflected in his increasingly tortured explanations here.

I'm getting the feeling the IAF at some point will break up their requirement into 2 transporters respectively : < 20-25 tons & 30-40 tons / 40-60 tons , the reason being the requirements of current MTA is designed to "lessen the burden "on the Il-76 given the age of the transporter & lack of upgradation .

That term in apostrophes is very vague. Which is how you have this odd collection of transporters participating in the MTA. The explanation I've given in the first paragraph seems the most likely one with the real competition being between the C-130 J & the C-390.

Given the recent developments in Indo US relationship , I think it's a no brainer where this one is headed.

 

[babablacksheep]

I've a feeling this MTA tender is another smoke screen . For what exactly , I can't tell. Or perhaps it could well be a case of the IAF wanting to have a closer look at the other transporters namely the C-2 & the A-400 M .

The IAF previously had a doctrine of Last Mile Connectivity which was fulfilled by the An-32 .
However since max load carried by the An-32 was < 7000 with the next transporter being the C+130 J , it was observed that the latter was over worked resulting in wear & tear besides more OPEX .

Hence the C-295 for light transport which is an upgrade over the An-32. Now some genius has combined the requirements of both a regional transporter & the replacement of the Il-76 into one meaning from 10-40 tons we're going to use one class of Transporters.

This makes about as much sense as the MMRCA 2.0 tender for SE & TE FAs . We know how that one turned out irrespective of the usual suspect shilling for it since the RFI was announced undergoing contortions explaining it here suffering repeated spasms as a result reflected in his increasingly tortured explanations here.

I'm getting the feeling the IAF at some point will break up their requirement into 2 transporters respectively : < 20-25 tons & 30-40 tons / 40-60 tons , the reason being the requirements of current MTA is designed to "lessen the burden "on the Il-76 given the age of the transporter & lack of upgradation .

That term in apostrophes is very vague. Which is how you have this odd collection of transporters participating in the MTA. The explanation I've given in the first paragraph seems the most likely one with the real competition being between the C-130 J & the C-390.

Given the recent developments in Indo US relationship , I think it's a no brainer where this one is headed.

I think requirement should be broken down into something like,
40 c390/c-130(20-26 tons payload) + 20 newer Il-76MD-90A( 60 tons payload).

Along with looking at upgrades of some older il-76 if possible.

 

[_Anonymous_]

I think requirement should be broken down into something like,
40 c390/c-130(20-26 tons payload) + 20 newer Il-76MD-90A( 60 tons payload).

Along with looking at upgrades of some older il-76 if possible.

Russian aircraft are out except Su-57. Unless they've something really special to offer which I don't think they do. Upgradation of Il-76 will happen . As usual it's been terribly delayed & then the war in Ukraine happened.

 

[babablacksheep]

Russian aircraft are out except Su-57. Unless they've something really special to offer which I don't think they do. Upgradation of Il-76 will happen . As usual it's been terribly delayed & then the war in Ukraine happened.

The only heavy lift aircraft in production that we can buy is russuan il-76md-90a.

Other one is chinese.

So the only way we can broke down the requirement into seprate medium & heavy category is buying russian transporter, or it can't be broken Down, at most we can buy a-400m( 40 tons payload, still lower than 48 tons in our il-76's) which actually will be more expensive than a heavy transport like il-76md-90a.

 

[Hydra]

What if we collaborate with EU and convert Airbus A330 to a strategic lifter? And IL76 can replace with that aircraft. With this approach we can free IL76 replacement requirements from the ongoing MTS tender and focused on core medium aircrafts like C390.

 

[Speedster1]

Let's not forget the 6 B767 MMTTs we have coming in. These will provide significant airlift/cargo capacity to the IAF. Some reports say it can carry upto 60t + 200 pax in the refueller config. That means IL-76++ capacity, except it cannot land at high-altitude airbases like Leh. I figure it could cover the bulk of cargo, other than armour and other heavy equipment. Imo, C-390 could easily take care of everything else.

 

[_Anonymous_]

The only heavy lift aircraft in production that we can buy is russuan il-76md-90a.

Other one is chinese.

So the only way we can broke down the requirement into seprate medium & heavy category is buying russian transporter, or it can't be broken Down, at most we can buy a-400m( 40 tons payload, still lower than 48 tons in our il-76's) which actually will be more expensive than a heavy transport like il-76md-90a.

Russian transporters like all their planes have notoriously shorter shelf lives than western ones & are maintenance heavy.

Which means the IAF would most likely go in for the A-400 M when Airbus upgrades its lifting capacity to 40 tons + as a replacement for the Il-76 MD unless as I've pointed out before the Russians have achieved a really splendid breakthrough pitching their transporters on par with western transporters which I doubt.

While the CAPEX of the A-300 M will definitely be on the higher side , I believe its longer life & lower OPEX will offset the purchase price.

For strategic lift there's the C-17 . If need be a few more can be procured just as there's a requirement for more C-130 J transporters irrespective of the MTA requirement.

Let's not forget the 6 B767 MMTTs we have coming in. These will provide significant airlift/cargo capacity to the IAF. Some reports say it can carry upto 60t + 200 pax in the refueller config. That means IL-76++ capacity, except it cannot land at high-altitude airbases like Leh. I figure it could cover the bulk of cargo, other than armour and other heavy equipment. Imo, C-390 could easily take care of everything else.

I thought that cock eyed scheme of doubling up transporters as refuellers was scrapped by the IAF. Are we sincerely revisiting the same ?

Might as well get used 6 x Boeing 767 & modify them as transporters.

 

[lmaoxd]

Imo the best fit for us would be the A400M which has decent high altitude capability and can take of unprepared runways and whatnot. But theyre very expensive and the engines are also maintenance heavy and custom for the aircraft. OR we could go with the C-2 whose engines are bascically militarized commercial engines but we need like an very tight agreement with japan without loopholes to not get *censored*ed over if they suddenly change their mind.

the A400M or the C-2 can also be converted to an AWACS if we need, they have more than enough power.

Its either this or we are going for a 40+C390s and 20 A400M/C-2

 

[babablacksheep]

Russian transporters like all their planes have notoriously shorter shelf lives than western ones & are maintenance heavy.

The PS-90A-76 (often referred to as PS-90A) is designed for service life of 30,000 flight hours.

The aircraft il-76md-90a itself is Designed for a service life of 30 years.

for comparison

Modern military transport engines( though in service ones) Typically operate in demanding environments (short fields, high throttle for takeoff) can last 15,000 to over 20,000 hours with proper maintenance.


Russia has made leaps in its jet engine tech in recent decades.

For strategic lift there's the C-17

C-17 production line is closed.
Need to order at least ~50 for production to start again.

Which means the IAF would most likely go in for the A-400 M when Airbus upgrades its lifting capacity to 40 tons

The A400M aircraft itself is designed for a service life of approximately 30,000 flight hours or 30 years




Its alteast worth it to take a look to confirm if those claims hold true, if were hypothetically going for heavy lift

 

[lmaoxd]

The PS-90A-76 (often referred to as PS-90A) is designed for service life of 30,000 flight hours.

The aircraft il-76md-90a itself is Designed for a service life of 30 years.

Trusting russian claims when they lie as much as our own babus do is incredibly dense. Europeans are not a whole lot better either. They just want significant exports beyond the EU and India is prolly the only country on the planet who has the money and doesnt have its own program.

 

[Aniruddha]

I thought that cock eyed scheme of doubling up transporters as refuellers was scrapped by the IAF. Are we sincerely revisiting the same ?

Might as well get used 6 x Boeing 767 & modify them as transporters.

I think the original scheme was for AEW&C to double up as aerial refuellers.
That scheme has been scrapped.

Aerial refuellers can definitely double up as non strategic transports, in fact the A330 MRTT has been doing exactly this since its introduction.

 

[Speedster1]

I thought that cock eyed scheme of doubling up transporters as refuellers was scrapped by the IAF. Are we sincerely revisiting the same ?

Might as well get used 6 x Boeing 767 & modify them as transporters.

That's the whole USP/use case of
MMTT/MRTT vs dedicated tankers like IL-76M which can only perform one role at a time.

B767 has a lot more cabin space for cargo or pax.

 

[babablacksheep]

Trusting russian claims when they lie as much as our own babus do is incredibly dense. Europeans are not a whole lot better either. They just want significant exports beyond the EU and India is prolly the only country on the planet who has the money and doesnt have its own program.

Its alteast worth it to take a look to confirm if those claims hold true, if were hypothetically going for heavy lift

 

[lmaoxd]

Ofc its worth looking at those claims but we need to be realistic as well.

 

[babablacksheep]

Ofc its worth looking at those claims but we need to be realistic as well.

Realistic by what basis? *Older* russian equipment?


Like relatively advanced,s-400 is being praised by IAF.

 

[YoungWolf]

I'm getting the feeling the IAF at some point will break up their requirement into 2 transporters respectively : < 20-25 tons & 30-40 tons / 40-60 tons , the reason being the requirements of current MTA is designed to "lessen the burden "on the Il-76 given the age of the transporter & lack of upgradation .

My feelings exactly. Type-1 transport (upto 26 tons) contested between C-130J and C-390, and Type 2 (>35 tons) between C2 (if the Japanese respond) and A400M.

Along with looking at upgrades of some older il-76 if possible.

Don't think the Il-76s will be upgraded. They're 40 years old now, and by the time IAF decides to make up their minds (a big IF) about upgrading them, they'll be 50 y/o and ripe for retirement, which one can argue the Il-76s already are. Them being high maintenance hangar queens don't earn them too many favours in the IAF's eyes either.

 

[randomradio]

As I keep saying, training & proving operations are not a regular deployment operation. Do read about the number of hoops the IL-76 crews had to jump through in order to fulfill that airlift.

And that's when you're trying to do what you can with what you have - nobody in their right mind will seek that for a new procurement.

IL-76 was not designed for hot and high though.

It's not likely to win either way. We won't put all our transport aircraft eggs in the American basket.

Sure, but I wasn't concentrating on strategic aspects, just a purely technical one.

C-2 is not a serious contender due to Japan's own political reasons & lack of clear export mechanism. It might also be politically unwise to buy from them, given they might backtrack support over irrational reasons later.

Only C-390, A400M & C-130J-30 are the realistic options.

Sure. Even their participation is currently in question.

I'm feeling the same way when you say that just because a Boeing 707 airframe can theoretically sustain 36-48 hours continuous airborne time (with multiple refuels), therefore every E-3 sortie can & must be made to last 36-48 hours.

Hmm, what?

 

[randomradio]

Oof, it's a local production program, there won't be a split. This is the same retarded logic people used during MMRCA. IAF is not planning on creating a zoo. The C-295 (9T), C-17 (70T),and MTA (18-30T) will be our long term work horses. Pay attention to the payload numbers.

If C-130s are to be ordered, it will be separate, meant for SOF, just like the previous ones. But if C-390 is selected, it would be a better option than buying more C-130s. If C-2 or even A400M is bought, there's some room for more C-130s due to its lower pricetag, that's about the only benefit. This requirement is not for a mule, but an advanced survivor meant to deliver troops beyond the frontline.

What if we collaborate with EU and convert Airbus A330 to a strategic lifter? And IL76 can replace with that aircraft. With this approach we can free IL76 replacement requirements from the ongoing MTS tender and focused on core medium aircrafts like C390.

Let's not forget the 6 B767 MMTTs we have coming in. These will provide significant airlift/cargo capacity to the IAF. Some reports say it can carry upto 60t + 200 pax in the refueller config. That means IL-76++ capacity, except it cannot land at high-altitude airbases like Leh. I figure it could cover the bulk of cargo, other than armour and other heavy equipment. Imo, C-390 could easily take care of everything else.

These are not tactical transports.

A tactical transport is heavy on aerodynamics and survivability.

Imo the best fit for us would be the A400M which has decent high altitude capability and can take of unprepared runways and whatnot. But theyre very expensive and the engines are also maintenance heavy and custom for the aircraft. OR we could go with the C-2 whose engines are bascically militarized commercial engines but we need like an very tight agreement with japan without loopholes to not get *censored*ed over if they suddenly change their mind.

It can win only via a single-vendor situation. It's also unknown how IAF will navigate through the 30T max limit.

the A400M or the C-2 can also be converted to an AWACS if we need, they have more than enough power.

Too expensive. Spending money on A330 is better.

Its either this or we are going for a 40+C390s and 20 A400M/C-2

No split. It's local production, only 1 will be selected.

 

[_Anonymous_]

I think the original scheme was for AEW&C to double up as aerial refuellers.
That scheme has been scrapped.

I stand corrected.

Aerial refuellers can definitely double up as non strategic transports, in fact the A330 MRTT has been doing exactly this since its introduction.

Somehow I'm not quite comfortable with this idea. This would be good for countries which have relatively peaceful neighbourhoods & action if at all would be in distant climes of a supporting nature which is precisely what the case is with Europe.

Hence this cost effective strategy of killing 2 bird with one stone thereby saving CAPEX & OPEX for there's literally no intensity to their operations.

Ours is probably the most dangerous neighborhood in the world ahead of even the Korean peninsula where operational intensity is high even otherwise not to mention what it'd be in times of a conflict.

Hence this doctrine of dual usage may suit the Europeans not us.