Airbus MRTT aircraft purchase put on hold

[SajeevJino]

Who is vivek ahuja by the way? Does he represent iaf in any way? It is just an opinion.

will give his email id, you can ask him about his identity and Nature of work

 

[SajeevJino]

Why? Did you stop eating the same food your father was eating. What do you mean by "generation old"? The new version of IL-76 with new engines is being bought by RuAF. This version has higher payload and range.
What will IAF do with existing IL-76 and IL-78? Throw them away because they bought C-17! Doubt it. IL-76 were bought in 80s (not IL-78 which were bought when BJP was in power). IL-76 can easily last over 40 years. You will see IL-76 in IAF for another decade at least. IL-78 will be seen for three decades more.

C-17 has NOT replaced IL-76. IL-76 continues to be used daily for supply to forward areas.

Sir, IL 78 is the best Transporter, Best Refuler and Best for Carrying bigger AESA Dome, and cost effective, less operating cost, whose life span more than 100 years

 

[brational]

Hey this Graph seems to indicate worse performace for Airbus.. Though it Indicates longer flying time but fuel usage seems more for a unit amout of fuel it carries. See how steep the slope of M330 is compared to KC10 or IL78. this graph seems to indicate Airbus would be a fuel guzzler

The graph tells the opposite..

 

[archie]

The graph tells the opposite..

I may be wrong.. But oneside is fuel and the other side is time on air(essentially distance travelled subject to speed and altitude) in that case the slope provides for milage (ineffect) payload being fuel itself.. In that case it is using more fuel as the slope is much steper than other aircraft ..

Though i agree for the time on air it provides for more fuel than IL78..

I am deducing fuel used to stay in air. Am i Wrong?

 

[archie]

this graph has similar slope with A330 having more endurance

 

[pmaitra]

IL-78 were bought in 2000s. That is some 12 years back. These airplanes were bought from Russia, not USSR. Your generational argument is completely flimsy. My point is very straight-forward - what has changed in terms of arguments just a few years later.
And yes, it makes sense to upgrade Avros, as this CAN BE DONE BY LOCAL INDUSTRY. I have said so on this forum.
Why this "availability" drum is being beaten so loudly for certain type of equipment? This question is important as other forces have bought the same equipment and is maintaining it without problems. IL-78 were bought by China after India.

Those Ilyushin-78s were bought from Uzbekistan.

If anyone has comprehension issues I have nothing to do with it. For readers, let me clarify, IAF is the prime user here and they are the best managers to decide what is good and useful for them. Let me quote my previous post again,
If any one could find the term obsolete above. It is clearly mentioned about suitability for a particular role in the context of time, requirements and TAT.

India is a buyer here, not the producer. If India were Producing such platforms, IAF would have been compelled to buy them from Local vendors even they were not suitable for the operational point. If anybody wants Russia to buy A330 or similar platforms from other countries, it is obvious that Russia won't so does China. India discarded Mig 25 in 2005 but the same machine is active with RuAF and many others. Does that mean Mig 25 is obsolete? Mig 25 is no more suitable for our Air Force since alternative solutions are available which are Cheaper and far more efficient to perform the same role played by Mig 25.

Again, if IAF, MoD and Ministry of Finance selects IL 78 again, I will not tear off my hairs as to Why Airbus's product got rejected and if rejected then why they were selected earlier. This is a forum for discussions based on facts and common sense not a place where you make random comments to increase the Count of Posts and earn badges. If my comments are irrelevant, sarcastic and baseless @mods can take the best action.

I am not so sure about that.

 

[brational]

Those Ilyushin-78s were bought from Uzbekistan.



I am not so sure about that.

Thanks, for Pointing out, I didn't mean that but Yes if we had a Similar platform like IL-76/78, IAF would have been compelled to buy those instead of A330, C-17 etc.

 

[brational]

I may be wrong.. But oneside is fuel and the other side is time on air(essentially distance travelled subject to speed and altitude) in that case the slope provides for milage (ineffect) payload being fuel itself.. In that case it is using more fuel as the slope is much steper than other aircraft ..

Though i agree for the time on air it provides for more fuel than IL78..

I am deducing fuel used to stay in air. Am i Wrong?

Since Payload, Speed and Altitude have not been factored into the graph, Fuel efficiency of A330 MRTT is looking very promising in very basket.

A330 MRTT 20000 Kg Fuel = 2.75 Hrs. and IL 78 = 2.5 Hrs.
A330 MRTT 100000 Kg Fuel = 14 Hrs. and IL 78 = 10.5 Hrs.

I have no idea what is in reality.

 

[jackprince]

Any update on the deal? Last I heard that the deal was supposed to have been signed after aeroindia2015. The reason for putting the deal on hold also have been done away with as C295 deal has been signed. So any news anyone?

 

[blue marlin]

I am concerned at the sheer variety in our defence procurement in certain categories. How many different varieties are we looking at?

We might as well get one of each kind.

thats a bad idea. if you have more than one platform you will be increasing maintenance, training, serving, as iaf personnel would have to be trained to handle multiple platforms. it best and preferred to have one platform. like you you currently have with the il-78 mki.

a good recommendation is the kc-46, it's cheaper than the a330 mrtt. some airforces are buying 767 airframes and then modifying them to transfer fuel. like brazil ,they purchased two 767's and sent them to IAI in isreal to upgrade them to a tanker role. you should do that. buy commercial planes and gain the expertise and convert the jets into tankers. if you dont like the 767 then airbus a330 is the same. but the sing spars need to be changed similar to and a340 though to accommodate the fuel pods. and you never know you may export some too.

 

[blue marlin]

Any update on the deal? Last I heard that the deal was supposed to have been signed after aeroindia2015. The reason for putting the deal on hold also have been done away with as C295 deal has been signed. So any news anyone?

is there update on the c295 deal?

 

[harsh]

Indian defence ministry scraps MRTT tender for second time

SOURCE: IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly

Airbus Defence and Space (DS) has said India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) terminated in late June the six-year-old USD2 billion tender for six multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) aircraft for the Indian Air Force (IAF), for which the company’s A330 MRTT had been shortlisted. “We have been notified by the MoD of the withdrawal of the request for proposals (RfP), but we do not see this as the end of the road for the A330 MRTT campaign in India,” an Airbus official told IHS Jane’s on 26 July, adding that the aerospace company “will engage with the Indian government in finding a way to bring the A330 MRTT’s capabilities to the IAF”.

idrw.org

 

[Rahul Singh]

Why not buy A330 in plain cargo configuration and then convert it into MRTT ourselves like IAI does by name BEDEK? What is in a MRTT after all, few storage tanks and couple of hoses with drogue chute and necessary electronics? Is this adapter package more complicated than a AWACS or MPA suit? We need to get out of this vicious cycle of RFI, RFP, Negotiations, Import, RFI, RFP, Negotiations, Support.

This route will not only make us independent in this critical area but also reduce complications that are natural with any import. In time when we will have our own multi role wide body jetliners we would be able to develop all types of Multi-Mission aircrafts. HAL and CABS should join hands to develop mid air refueling adapter package. We not only need large A330 class MRTTs but also one based on smaller airframe. One based on smaller airframes could sever IAF well during two front war while operating from bases close to FOBs. These will be of great support to LCA which should then form formidable iron curtain in air. Thus reliving larger fighters like MKIs to concentrate on strike missions.

 

[harsh]

View attachment 9572 View attachment 9573 View attachment 9572 Why not buy A330 in plain cargo configuration and then convert it into MRTT ourselves like IAI does by name BEDEK? What is in a MRTT after all, few storage tanks and couple of hoses with drogue chute and necessary electronics? Is this adapter package more complicated than a AWACS or MPA suit? We need to get out of this vicious cycle of RFI, RFP, Negotiations, Import, RFI, RFP, Negotiations, Support.

This route will not only make us independent in this critical area but also reduce complications that are natural with any import. In time when we will have our own multi role wide body jetliners we would be able to develop all types of Multi-Mission aircrafts. HAL and CABS should join hands to develop mid air refueling adapter package. We not only need large A330 class MRTTs but also one based on smaller airframe. One based on smaller airframes could sever IAF well during two front war while operating from bases close to FOBs. These will be of great support to LCA which should then form formidable iron curtain in air. Thus reliving larger fighters like MKIs to concentrate on strike missions.

India today operates 6 IL 78 as MRTT. Now nobody know how IAF select 6 airbus 330 for their next batch.
It is not like anybody has doubts on the capability on airbus 330 but operating two different aircraft in that
Kind of small numbers (ex 6) is a logistical nightmare.
Even IAF is the only air force which uses such a diverse kind of fighter aircraft in its inventory. But come on in MRTT types aircraft we need only 15 to 20 aircrafts.
IL 78 is good aircraft and also the cheap one.
and it also uses same platform of IL 76 which we also have for transport.
So again logistically easy to maintain.
less training needed.
airbus 330 have greater range which is not the requirement as we need tankers for use only nearby we are not going anywhere to attack far away. You know we put enemies closer than our friends. So buying a expensive medium range tanker transport aircraft that we don't need is not a priority at this time when we are short for fighter aircrafts.

 

[aditya g]

Rahul, you are talking common sense. please stop it. Our system does not know how to handle that.

View attachment 9572 View attachment 9573 View attachment 9572 Why not buy A330 in plain cargo configuration and then convert it into MRTT ourselves like IAI does by name BEDEK? What is in a MRTT after all, few storage tanks and couple of hoses with drogue chute and necessary electronics? Is this adapter package more complicated than a AWACS or MPA suit? We need to get out of this vicious cycle of RFI, RFP, Negotiations, Import, RFI, RFP, Negotiations, Support.

This route will not only make us independent in this critical area but also reduce complications that are natural with any import. In time when we will have our own multi role wide body jetliners we would be able to develop all types of Multi-Mission aircrafts. HAL and CABS should join hands to develop mid air refueling adapter package. We not only need large A330 class MRTTs but also one based on smaller airframe. One based on smaller airframes could sever IAF well during two front war while operating from bases close to FOBs. These will be of great support to LCA which should then form formidable iron curtain in air. Thus reliving larger fighters like MKIs to concentrate on strike missions.

 

[republic_roi97]

...........................................................

 

[republic_roi97]

.................................................................

 

[SajeevJino]

India today operates 6 IL 78 as MRTT. Now nobody know how IAF select 6 airbus 330 for their next batch.
It is not like anybody has doubts on the capability on airbus 330 but operating two different aircraft in that
Kind of small numbers (ex 6) is a logistical nightmare.
Even IAF is the only air force which uses such a diverse kind of fighter aircraft in its inventory. But come on in MRTT types aircraft we need only 15 to 20 aircrafts.
IL 78 is good aircraft and also the cheap one.
and it also uses same platform of IL 76 which we also have for transport.
So again logistically easy to maintain.
less training needed.
airbus 330 have greater range which is not the requirement as we need tankers for use only nearby we are not going anywhere to attack far away. You know we put enemies closer than our friends. So buying a expensive medium range tanker transport aircraft that we don't need is not a priority at this time when we are short for fighter aircrafts.

your concern is neglected, IAF want a superior platform than the Hanger Queen IL 78,

now the game is started between KC 46 A and A 330 MRTT, IAF already tested MRTT while KC 46 A yet to face the IAF trails

 

[republic_roi97]

your concern is neglected, IAF want a superior platform than the Hanger Queen IL 78,

now the game is started between KC 46 A and A 330 MRTT, IAF already tested MRTT while KC 46 A yet to face the IAF trails

I think that they should go with A330 MRTT seeing that GoI has already selected A330 for DRDO planned AWACS. Because that way, logistical hurdles would be of lesser concern.

 

[harsh]

I think that they should go with A330 MRTT seeing that GoI has already selected A330 for DRDO planned AWACS. Because that way, logistical hurdles would be of lesser concern.

Well in India selection is something different from acquisition.
We select weapons on their capabilities but didn't consider their cost and life cycle cost.
In previous government life cycle cost calculation is a life time scam.
So nobody knows how many times tender will cancel and how many something will be selected.
And the new government is also considering diplomatic relations and power in new acquisition decisions.

So whether something have capabilities or not it is way too complex to know.