IAF will never want more IL76 or IL78 as they suffer serviceability issues. At any time only 49% of the aerial tanker fleet is available.
A320 is too small for aerial tanker role. We need wide body airliners.
I don't think Indigo has wide-body aircraft, they only have A320s. IAF is only interested in 6 more tankers for lease. If they had the money for 12-18 lease, then they can easily buy 6 second-hand tankers instead.
The economics to be considered is leasing out 16 year old 12-18 A-320s in 2022 for 10 years plus modification & warranty vis a vis outright purchase of 6 x 2nd hand tankers. In case of a lease, You won't be shelling out the money in 1 go. Plus there lies the issue of compatibility of the probes of Russian Aircrafts with a western tanker. Then there are the P-8i, the Jags, Mirages & Tejas to factor in. One can look at the A-320 as a sub optimal solution to cater to mid air refuelling within our land mass & leave the Ilyushins to cater to overseas activities assuming the Ilyushins are compatible with the P-8i.
Will Jet Airways survive? Especially with air travel being banned now, and possibly limited in the future.
A320 won't be used for refuelling. It can only carry 24kT of fuel. Barely even refuel one MKI. We need IL-78 with 85kT, B-767 with 96kT or A330 with 111kT.
Someone has to buy 12-18 of these large tankers first.
Won't be an issue.
We need A330.
Last edited:
Useless to the IAF. American tankers use the flying boom, while we use probe and drogue.
The aircraft comes with one probe attachment, but there's only 1 and it's dangerous.
It's suffered a ridiculous amount of crashes as well. Not to mention, very, very ancient.
Well then, all we've to do is either buy it outright from Airbus or lease it from them which seems unlikely. The 3rd option is to a tripartite agreement with a 3rd party who'd buy it out & lease it to the IAF with an option to buy it in say a decade from now . How's that for jugaad?
P.S - staying home as opposed to working from home coz our genius company which survives on JIT & imports all its raw materials from China and which like China is in shutdown mode since end January had made me more optimistic than you. My zone hadn't even sold a value as much as our salaries cost the company since end Jan. That's two months in a row. Yet we're receiving our salaries & allowances on time which has me an eternal optimist. Free to devote my intellect on such pressing matters as above.
May the IAF find such a benefactor too. May you continue to be an optimist. May I continue to receive my salary & incentives without performance.
IAF is unlikely to buy the tankers. They want it in non-war situations, like training and exercises.
Considering the pandemic, being optimistic is the best recourse.
Actually the US has a conversion kit for probe and dogue attachment to refuel their F-18 SH.
Being an old platform is certainly a concern but it isn't going anywhere anytime soon as KC-46 is exponentially expensive.
Are our P8I capable to refuel from probe and drogue arrangement?
I think our C130J can. Other than those our Russian or French aircrafts, non depend upon boom system.
IAF plans to operate more tankers on their own, whenever they get the funds for it. The ownership of the tankers in question will remain with an Indian company, which will likely also use the aircraft for their own purposes.
What the IAF plans to do is use these leased tankers for training and exercises, which is of no operational significance. And then they will buy their own tankers later on, which they will use for actual operations. This will also free up the current lot of IL-78s for operations, so the flying hours are not wasted on the other trivial stuff.
I've already pointed that out.
The aircraft comes with one probe attachment, but there's only 1 and it's dangerous.
P-8I can only use the boom. American refuelers will refuel it whenever or wherever possible.
In the AS and BoB, the P-8I doesn't need refuelling, the sortie rates are high enough. In the Andamans and SCS, American tankers are always available.
Anyway, this is the IN's headache, not the IAF's. They need something like the KC-45 actually, which has 1 boom and 2 probes. But I don't think the IN will actually go for a dedicated P-8I refueller. Not like they will have the money for it, considering that expensive carrier plan.
If they plan to up the P-8i fleet to 24-30 , they'd definitely be thinking on the lines of getting a couple of tankers for operation in the SCS. This need not be an immediate requirement. But it's definitely a long term one.
sounds like a cock eyed arrangement. Just like the proposal to utilize the Tanker as AWACS too. Which company is going to lease the IAF modified aircrafts as tankers for a few weeks a year merely so that they can exercise. What happens to both the options - Tanker cum AWACS & Dry Lease once war breaks out.
I think the fleet has been limited to 22 now, with UCAVs plugging the holes. And why would they buy tankers when the money is better used on more P-8Is instead.
A wide-body tanker is more expensive than the narrow-body P-8I. And since it's a small aircraft relatively, it can generate a pretty decent sortie rate.
The West follows this model already. It's because tankers are not always required and the aircraft can ferry passengers whenever required. It's quite profitable. Like playing with a friend's dog, without having to go through the hassle of feeding it and taking care of it.
The tanker cum AWACS won't be shared of course. This is a whole different program under AWACS-India.
During war, the leased tankers will likely be operated by the IAF themselves, which will be no different from using it during a long exercise or training, since future wars are expected to be short.
Possible solution to IAF tanker requirement:
Compared to our previous contract terms for 6 unit acquisition in 2013:
Do the math. 6 unit purchase with an operational lifespan of 25-30 years for $1.5 billion or 14 unit lease for 27 years which includes maintenance, infrastructure and other services for $3.5 billion.
Good Day!
Compared to our previous contract terms for 6 unit acquisition in 2013:
Do the math. 6 unit purchase with an operational lifespan of 25-30 years for $1.5 billion or 14 unit lease for 27 years which includes maintenance, infrastructure and other services for $3.5 billion.
Good Day!
That's the same cost per aircraft, so the question is whether the purchase price includes maintenance, infrastructure, and other services, like the lease, or not.
Remember: if you lease from a company, that company is angling to get a profit out of it, one way or another.