Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
5,975
Likes
6,238
Country flag
Appreciate your response. You might be right that c295 carry more troops than c27j, in the same way su-34 have a higher weapon's load than su-30mki. But IAF didn't go for su-34 and rightly so because multirole is more bang for the buck. That is why i am failing to see the logic behind IAF's arbitrary decision of keeping out c27j and il112v. And if this is not IAF's decision then why didn't they protest.

Regarding blacklisting of Leonardo, well my view is the whole policy of blacklisting is counter productive to indian interests, why not just hand out fines. And regarding il 112v crash, i think a crash during early development stage is a good thing.

Both blacklisting and recent crash doesn't explain IAF's lack of foresight and disregard for indian tax payers.
First of all, both the products you are referring to are not available. Whether you like it or not, the fact remains that Leonardo is blacklisted. And 112 won't be available for purchase for another 5-10 years.

Second, IAF chose what they needed. They needed troop and pallet carrier, they chose it. IAF doesn't transport light vehicles by air (those which will fit in C27j). Neither is there any lack of foresight nor disregard for indian tax payers. An analogy: Trucks can carry people and materials, does that mean IA shouldn't acquire LSVs?
 

pipebomb

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
192
Likes
379
Country flag
First of all, both the products you are referring to are not available. Whether you like it or not, the fact remains that Leonardo is blacklisted. And 112 won't be available for purchase for another 5-10 years.

Second, IAF chose what they needed. They needed troop and pallet carrier, they chose it. IAF doesn't transport light vehicles by air (those which will fit in C27j). Neither is there any lack of foresight nor disregard for indian tax payers. An analogy: Trucks can carry people and materials, does that mean IA shouldn't acquire LSVs?
Again thanks for your response and appreciate your interest in this topic. I somewhat see how il112 availability could have been an issue for trails but Leonardo situation is completely of GOI's doing. Also i agree with your analogy, it's just that IAF already has an LSV(do228). I fail to see the point of a second so called LSV which is of almost same weight class as a truck(c27j) with none of the added benifits of a truck. Here is an radical idea for IAF(with due respect), what if IAF's troops and pallets carrier could have also carry vehicles.

I think we have to agree to disagree on this (though i have an open mind and willing to change my views if new & better info comes my way). I think our armed forces (including IAF) has huge potential for optimization (fat trimming) which will also increase their capacity. Didn't Gen Sundarji propose something similar to vdv. Our time to toy with packies are over, we now have a super power to deal with.
 

Kartooz

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Messages
88
Likes
274
Country flag
Appreciate your response. You might be right that c295 carry more troops than c27j, in the same way su-34 have a higher weapon's load than su-30mki. But IAF didn't go for su-34 and rightly so because multirole is more bang for the buck. That is why i am failing to see the logic behind IAF's arbitrary decision of keeping out c27j and il112v. And if this is not IAF's decision then why didn't they protest.

Regarding blacklisting of Leonardo, well my view is the whole policy of blacklisting is counter productive to indian interests, why not just hand out fines. And regarding il 112v crash, i think a crash during early development stage is a good thing.

Both blacklisting and recent crash doesn't explain IAF's lack of foresight and disregard for indian tax payers.
I do not understand what is your problem with the C295. People have given you all kinds of reasoning to explain to you why it was chosen, but you just don't want to be convinced.
 

Sir pe tapla

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2021
Messages
247
Likes
1,268
Country flag
Appreciate your response. You might be right that c295 carry more troops than c27j, in the same way su-34 have a higher weapon's load than su-30mki. But IAF didn't go for su-34 and rightly so because multirole is more bang for the buck. That is why i am failing to see the logic behind IAF's arbitrary decision of keeping out c27j and il112v. And if this is not IAF's decision then why didn't they protest.

Regarding blacklisting of Leonardo, well my view is the whole policy of blacklisting is counter productive to indian interests, why not just hand out fines. And regarding il 112v crash, i think a crash during early development stage is a good thing.

Both blacklisting and recent crash doesn't explain IAF's lack of foresight and disregard for indian tax payers.
What in the world kind of logic is this? Comparing Logistics plane with jets?

Then by your logic since BMP2 is multirole , i.e. carry troops, attack , recon etc, we should always buy BMP 2 instead of buying other logistics vehicles like trucks??
 

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
5,975
Likes
6,238
Country flag
Again thanks for your response and appreciate your interest in this topic. I somewhat see how il112 availability could have been an issue for trails but Leonardo situation is completely of GOI's doing. Also i agree with your analogy, it's just that IAF already has an LSV(do228). I fail to see the point of a second so called LSV which is of almost same weight class as a truck(c27j) with none of the added benifits of a truck. Here is an radical idea for IAF(with due respect), what if IAF's troops and pallets carrier could have also carry vehicles.

I think we have to agree to disagree on this (though i have an open mind and willing to change my views if new & better info comes my way). I think our armed forces (including IAF) has huge potential for optimization (fat trimming) which will also increase their capacity. Didn't Gen Sundarji propose something similar to vdv. Our time to toy with packies are over, we now have a super power to deal with.
You are probably missing out on the most crucial point. IAF needs troop carrier, C295MW is better at carrying troops (72) than C27j (60). So for the intended purpose C295MW is the more capable aircraft.

Avros do not carry jeeps, neither will C295MW, because Indian Armed forces use railways to move vehicles, not aircrafts.
 

pipebomb

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
192
Likes
379
Country flag
You are probably missing out on the most crucial point. IAF needs troop carrier, C295MW is better at carrying troops (72) than C27j (60). So for the intended purpose C295MW is the more capable aircraft.

Avros do not carry jeeps, neither will C295MW, because Indian Armed forces use railways to move vehicles, not aircrafts.
I am not missing out i just think that IAF made a poor decision at the cost of exchequer's money by not settling for 12 less troop capacity and gaining vehicle lift capability. Lets consider a hypothetical scenario where IAF is urgently asked to supply a humvee size vehicle to one of the remote ALGs, now as IAF doesn't have light aircraft to do this job they are forced to use c130(4 engined aircraft with significantly higher OPEX than 2 engine aircraft) instead with spare capacity unused or have to reschedule when additional cargo comes(for the same route) which is not possible because its urgent delivery. So at the end of this hypothetical scenario it would be the Indian taxpayers who gets short end of the stick.
 

Kartooz

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Messages
88
Likes
274
Country flag
I am not missing out i just think that IAF made a poor decision at the cost of exchequer's money by not settling for 12 less troop capacity and gaining vehicle lift capability. Lets consider a hypothetical scenario where IAF is urgently asked to supply a humvee size vehicle to one of the remote ALGs, now as IAF doesn't have light aircraft to do this job they are forced to use c130(4 engined aircraft with significantly higher OPEX than 2 engine aircraft) instead with spare capacity unused or have to reschedule when additional cargo comes(for the same route) which is not possible because its urgent delivery. So at the end of this hypothetical scenario it would be the Indian taxpayers who gets short end of the stick.
Man. I agree with you now. You have opened my eyes. On the otherhand, one additional rupee increase in petrol price and we are all good for any shit deal even if it the C295 according to you. So just relax, you can't undo anything.
 

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
5,975
Likes
6,238
Country flag
I am not missing out i just think that IAF made a poor decision at the cost of exchequer's money by not settling for 12 less troop capacity and gaining vehicle lift capability. Lets consider a hypothetical scenario where IAF is urgently asked to supply a humvee size vehicle to one of the remote ALGs, now as IAF doesn't have light aircraft to do this job they are forced to use c130(4 engined aircraft with significantly higher OPEX than 2 engine aircraft) instead with spare capacity unused or have to reschedule when additional cargo comes(for the same route) which is not possible because its urgent delivery. So at the end of this hypothetical scenario it would be the Indian taxpayers who gets short end of the stick.
Are you just trolling by chance?

Operating cost of C130J is $10,400 per hour, can carry 3 Humvee type vehicles.
Operating cost of C27j is $9,000 per hour, can carry 1 Humvee type vehicle.

And you think carrying Humvee type vehicles in C27j would have been the cheaper option?

There is no conceivable scenario where IAF would have to airlift only one Humvee type vehicle on a regular basis.

If it is a one-off scenario, then operating cost of C-130J is not that high that it would be prohibitively costly.
 

pipebomb

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
192
Likes
379
Country flag
Are you just trolling by chance?

Operating cost of C130J is $10,400 per hour, can carry 3 Humvee type vehicles.
Operating cost of C27j is $9,000 per hour, can carry 1 Humvee type vehicle.

And you think carrying Humvee type vehicles in C27j would have been the cheaper option?

There is no conceivable scenario where IAF would have to airlift only one Humvee type vehicle on a regular basis.

If it is a one-off scenario, then operating cost of C-130J is not that high that it would be prohibitively costly.
Well this certainly new info to me. As i said before i have an open mind and i am willing to revist/change my views whenever new and better info comes my way. I must own up, fault is on my part. I simply assumed that c295 & c27j would have comparable OPEX, i also overlooked c-130’s huge production run which would be directly proportional to its OPEX. Though my queries/views can be right or wrong (as in this case) but why would you assume that it's anything but sincere or to say that i am trolling. I cannot claim in any capacity that i am remotely as knowledgeable as other senior members on this forum, i am here to discuss and learn, but mostly learn. Hash out views to form new ones. I hope people reading this thread could have found something valuable from my exchanges with other members( i did certainly) and hopefully other members doesn't feel discouraged to ask question or put forward their views.

If its not a trouble would you like to share your sources for operating cost of c27j and c130j.
 

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
5,975
Likes
6,238
Country flag
Well this certainly new info to me. As i said before i have an open mind and i am willing to revist/change my views whenever new and better info comes my way. I must own up, fault is on my part. I simply assumed that c295 & c27j would have comparable OPEX, i also overlooked c-130’s huge production run which would be directly proportional to its OPEX. Though my queries/views can be right or wrong (as in this case) but why would you assume that it's anything but sincere or to say that i am trolling. I cannot claim in any capacity that i am remotely as knowledgeable as other senior members on this forum, i am here to discuss and learn, but mostly learn. Hash out views to form new ones. I hope people reading this thread could have found something valuable from my exchanges with other members( i did certainly) and hopefully other members doesn't feel discouraged to ask question or put forward their views.

If its not a trouble would you like to share your sources for operating cost of c27j and c130j.
When you keep on adamantly using phrases like "IAF made a poor decision at the cost of exchequer's money" and "IAF's lack of foresight and disregard for indian tax payers", you risk coming across as a troll, instead of having an open mind and willing to revisit/change your views as new and better info comes your way.

Anyway, no harm done. Here is the source:

Former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told Congress in 2012 it cost $9,000 per hour to fly the C-27J and $10,400 to fly the C-130.

New Air Force Planes Are Going Straight To The 'Boneyard'
 

Flying Dagger

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
2,455
Likes
6,319
Country flag
Appreciate your response. You might be right that c295 carry more troops than c27j, in the same way su-34 have a higher weapon's load than su-30mki. But IAF didn't go for su-34 and rightly so because multirole is more bang for the buck. That is why i am failing to see the logic behind IAF's arbitrary decision of keeping out c27j and il112v. And if this is not IAF's decision then why didn't they protest.

Regarding blacklisting of Leonardo, well my view is the whole policy of blacklisting is counter productive to indian interests, why not just hand out fines. And regarding il 112v crash, i think a crash during early development stage is a good thing.

Both blacklisting and recent crash doesn't explain IAF's lack of foresight and disregard for indian tax payers.

India went for su 30 which is basically the mix of both world and aimed at air superiority.

Su 34 is basically for ground attack and was introduced later than Su 30.

Coming back to C 295 and the option you gave.... Well C295 is easily the better out there.
 

johnj

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
57
Likes
127
Country flag
Again thanks for your response and appreciate your interest in this topic. I somewhat see how il112 availability could have been an issue for trails but Leonardo situation is completely of GOI's doing. Also i agree with your analogy, it's just that IAF already has an LSV(do228). I fail to see the point of a second so called LSV which is of almost same weight class as a truck(c27j) with none of the added benifits of a truck. Here is an radical idea for IAF(with due respect), what if IAF's troops and pallets carrier could have also carry vehicles.

I think we have to agree to disagree on this (though i have an open mind and willing to change my views if new & better info comes my way). I think our armed forces (including IAF) has huge potential for optimization (fat trimming) which will also increase their capacity. Didn't Gen Sundarji propose something similar to vdv. Our time to toy with packies are over, we now have a super power to deal with.
if your question is why iaf choose c296 over c27j, and my memory is correct then Leonardo pulled back c27j from competition saying c27j more advanced aircraft for rfi.[expensive to acquire and operate]. i think it is more like a single vendor situation. also - c130 and c27 share common elements - iaf can easy operate and maintain c27. like c130, c27 also expensive. At that time iaf having plans to acquire mta jv.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top