MTA Program by UAC/HAL

[garg_bharat]

The speed advantage is present with the MTA but so what? The aircraft the MTA was to replace (An-32) is turboprop, has the IAF explictly stated they want a turbofan aircraft to replace the An-32s? They were just going along with it as this was what the Russians had proposed. The An-32s are exclusively used within India for relatively short trips and the "speed factor" is thus negligable- this would only really be relevent in long range flights (which the IAF would not need the An-32 replecment to do).

Addtionally, given that the C-130XJ/MTA would be the backbone of the IAF's transport wing one would want them to have the highest possible availabilty, correct? With the American product this is ensured- literally (by contract the C-130 and C-17 of the IAF have to have >85% availabilty at any one time)- we all know how poor Russian after sales support and availabilty rates are.

The C-130's "rough feild" capabilties are legendary, turbofans always struggle with this aspect and Russian aircraft are particuarly vulnerable to FOD it seems so I can confidently say the C-130XJ is a more suitable replacement to the An-32 than the MTA.

India needs to stop falling for Russia's "cheap factor", in the long run India pays for it in spades and I think the establishment has woken up to this reality.

IAF should have thought about all this before getting into MTA. Or Antony arm-twisted IAF??
Poor Generals.

 

[Gessler]

@Gessler Sorry it was turbofan for Il 214 and turboprop for C130 XJ, but for Il 214 we get full ToT and complete control over plane plus the prospect of profit by gain.It will bring important engine technology if full ToT for new FADEC engine is signed .IAF decided mid way in the project that FADEC engine is needed and a new engine means invest 5 $billion dollar and there goes money for Rafale ,budget management is not present .

I've said this before and I say it again...MTA does not bring any know-how or ToT other than what is deemed necessary to allow local production of said plane. That's what we signed up for and that's what we'll get.

The same is true for C-130J, if that plane is also locally produced.

 

[garg_bharat]

Did IAF calculate the LCC properly? Can IAF publish its LCC methodology??

 

[abingdonboy]

Thanks as you answered correctly before me. The fact is that MOD is facing escalation on all defence projects, both local and foreign, Russian or not.

Well this is simply not true and you are being intellectually dishonest here. I will concede that both Russian and Western prodcuts have faced cost escalations after their intial bid BUT there is a massive difference in the two situation and one is understandable, the other is unforgivable.

Western products increase their prices PRIOR to deal signing because the MoD sits on the deals for so long- you cannot reasonably expect a OEM to keep prices consistent for >4 years. Once the deal is signed, the costs will not exceed the agreed upon price.

Russian products increase their prices POST the deal being signed after both sides have agreed to a specific post price.This is inexcusable.

As such, when you sign a contract with the West, you know what you are getting, when and at what price, with the Russians it is all unknown.

The life-cycle costs you mentioned is only a flogging horse. I have already said before that Transports are used much below potential in IAF. So lifecycle costs of American planes will always be higher due to high initial costs. Maintenance is a significant issue for fighters but not for transports.

You don't understand what LCCs are if you are using this argument. And you point about transports being underutilsed is entirely false, just like fighter pilots, transport pilots have a minimum number of hours they have to fly every year. For fighter jocks this is around 250, I don't know what it is for transport pilots but it will be high.

And anyway, as we are talking about the AN-32 replacment, that fleet (An-32) is the hardest working fleet in the IAF and are used day in day out relentlessly all over India, any replacment (C-130XJ or MTA) would be equally hard working and thus reliabilty/availabilty is crucial and here the American/Western product would have a CLEAR edge that could prove crucial.

 

[garg_bharat]

I've said this before and I say it again...MTA does not bring any know-how or ToT other than what is deemed necessary to allow local production of said plane. That's what we signed up for and that's what we'll get.

The same is true for C-130J, if that plane is also locally produced.

No, I have already answered that. You are wrong.
A lie repeated hundred times does not become a truth.

 

[abingdonboy]

Did IAF calculate the LCC properly? Can IAF publish its LCC methodology??

Oh here we go, "I don't like the outcome so I'll challenge the methodolgy and insinuate wrongdoing". The same game that you and others play against the Rafale's selection.

 

[garg_bharat]

@abingdonboy, you are wrong. Get the data and then argue.
Transport and fighter are not same.
I also openly question IAF LCC methodology. Get it out then we shall discuss.

 

[abingdonboy]

IAF should have thought about all this before getting into MTA. Or Antony arm-twisted IAF??
Poor Generals.

When the MTA was signed (2008), it seemed like a fair and worthwhile deal. 8 years later with the plane still being found on paper plans only and the Russians now refusing to listen to the CUSTOMER it doesn't seem as credible and there are better options out there that should be explored.

Let's not forget the damage the Russians have done to the IAF's transport fleet (An-32s), do you really want to snuggle up to your murderer?

 

[abingdonboy]

I also openly question IAF LCC methodology. Get it out then we shall discuss.

So the IAF is going to disclose classified information to settle an internet forum discussion? Let's live in the real world for just a moment shall we?

 

[abingdonboy]

Antonov An-178 payload same as MTA..if we can negotiate antonov will make planes in india..

Forget about Antonov, they are out of the game entirely. Not only did they pull out of the An-32 upgrade deal with the IAF but they refused to participate in the Avro replcement deal because of the Crimean crisis. They have no standing with the IAF anymore and are in very poor health, they are basically bankrupt.

http://uatoday.tv/news/ukraine-s-antonov-aviation-group-liquidated-578864.html

 

[garg_bharat]

So the IAF is going to disclose classified information to settle an internet forum discussion? Let's live in the real world for just a moment shall we?

It is you who has brought LCC in the discussion, not me.
You are fighting over classified information.

 

[Gessler]

A lot of people were taken for a ride by the whole "ToT" thing.

First of all, they fail to understand & contemplate what Transfer of Technology actually means, and in what context. It is falsely assumed that when ToT is mentioned, it must mean that the concerned foreign vendor is going to throw the door open for Indians to plunder all of their Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) as we see fit.

This is not just a result of not knowing what ToT means, but also lacking a basic understanding of corporate & manufacturing-related work culture.

 

[garg_bharat]

Oh Yeah, only @Gessler knows. Nobody else knows.

 

[garg_bharat]

Operating costs of fighter aircrafts:
https://www.ftm.nl/upload/content/f...osts White Paper FINAL 13th March 2012(1).pdf

 

[garg_bharat]

Operating cost of American military aircrafts:
http://www.businessinsider.in/This-...US-Military-Aircraft/articleshow/45695703.cms

 

[abingdonboy]

It is you who has brought LCC in the discussion, not me.
You are fighting over classified information.

I am repeating what the IAF has said and I'll take their word over anyone on an internet forum. They said the LCC element was critical to the Apache, Chinook and A330 MRTT being selected over their Russian rivals and I accept this wholehertedly.

You are refusing to accept this because it isn't what you want to hear.

A lot of people were taken for a ride by the whole "ToT" thing.

First of all, they fail to understand & contemplate what Transfer of Technology actually means, and in what context. It is falsely assumed that when ToT is mentioned, it must mean that the concerned foreign vendor is going to throw the door open for Indians to plunder all of their Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) as we see fit.

This is not just a result of not knowing what ToT means, but also lacking a basic understanding of corporate & manufacturing-related work culture.

ToT in the MTA deal is irrelevent IMO. Under "Make in India" the idea is to bring high skilled jobs to India and to turn it into a manufacturing hub- a C-130XJ production line would do just this- ToT is entirely redundant especially considering that transport aircraft are not exactly cutting-edge tech.

What utility would there be with the ToT from the MTA? Avionics? India is already world class in this regard. Airframe? India already has the means. Perhaps on the engines but that is an unknown and the Russians have played weird games with ToT in the past. What benefits has ToT brought for HAL/ADA considering the "ToT" that came with the MKIs supposedly?

I say, forget about the ToT angle entirely on the An-32 replacement, get the best PRODUCT and get it made in India.

 

[Bahamut]

@abingdonboy The problem we are talking started to happen in 90 and are more or less solved ,

A lot of people were taken for a ride by the whole "ToT" thing.

First of all, they fail to understand & contemplate what Transfer of Technology actually means, and in what context. It is falsely assumed that when ToT is mentioned, it must mean that the concerned foreign vendor is going to throw the door open for Indians to plunder all of their Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) as we see fit.

This is not just a result of not knowing what ToT means, but also lacking a basic understanding of corporate & manufacturing-related work culture.

That is called full ToT plus plus ToT on sub systems and in the case of MRT all the sub systems were going to be of Russian or Indian origin ,plus we have full ToT so we can use these system and by pass IPR and Russian are more easy going on IPR violation ,just ask China .In the case MRT we have the same rights on each system as Russian unlike PAK FA so it was more fair deal.

 

[abingdonboy]

@abingdonboy The problem we are talking started to happen in 90 and are more or less solved ,

What do you mean?

--------------------------------

 

[abingdonboy]

That is called full ToT plus plus ToT on sub systems and in the case of MRT all the sub systems were going to be of Russian or Indian origin ,plus we have full ToT so we can use these system and by pass IPR and Russian are more easy going on IPR violation ,just ask China .In the case MRT we have the same rights on each system as Russian unlike PAK FA so it was more fair deal.

1)The Russians aren't easy going on IPR violations. They refused to sell China the MiG-29K because of the J-11 and J-15 and have been conducting back-door talks on this matter for a while and it is specculated China has agreed to not export any Russian origin design (J-11/15) to a third party.

2) India respects IPR and that's why it has got where it has, violating them now would not be benefical.

3) What part of the MTA that India will get ToT on is critical tech that India doesn't have now?

 

[Bahamut]

@abingdonboy
The cost of Mi 28N is 15 million and cost of AH 64D is 65 million.Let take the cost of maintenance of 20 years as 3 times for AH 64 D and 10 times for Mi 28N.The final cost of Mi 28N (15 +150) is 165 million and for AH 64 Dit is (65 +195) 260 million .By your logic Mi 28 N should have won as it has the lowest bet.The cost of Mil Mi 26 T2 is 18 million and for CH 47 F is 38.5 million.Let take the same maintenance figure Mi 26 (18 +180) 198 and CH 47 (38.5 + 115) 154 so Chinook is OK for that logic .Il 78 unit cost is 116 ,A 330 is 231 million so with same figure Il 78 is 1.276 billion while A 330 MRT 976 million so ok for A 330 MRT .The reason I gave you were the official reason give to Russian embassy for thier lost in contract.