Tata Aerospace C 295

[Rajaraja Chola]

There are no heavy lifters in production anymore!! Last aircraft in commercial production was C17. I guess A400 will provide some better capability when we finally retire IL76 or maybe convert it into tankers. In heavy category we would have to be content with 11 C17 for the faceable future!!

The US is planning to get militarized versions of more 747 which it already uses and 777 version for military cargoes. They are currently concentrating on KC46, refueler based on 767 version and use that as future middle level cargo planes. Whether that will be as rugged as C17 we don’t know that. But the world is moving towards civilian models to be used as military models for maintenance purposes.

 

[Tshering22]

The US is planning to get militarized versions of more 747 which it already uses and 777 versions for military cargo. They are currently concentrating on KC46, a refueler based on the 767 version and use that as future middle-level cargo planes. Whether that will be as rugged as C17 we don’t know that. But the world is moving towards civilian models to be used as military models for maintenance purposes.

Not really. The C-17s and several other transporter models worldwide serve a very unique purpose. Whether it is landing on punishing airstrips, air-dropping troops behind enemy lines, or doing some crazy maneuvers like the Israeli Operation Thunderbolt in Uganda, civilian planes will never be as flexible and versatile as the purpose-built transporter planes.

Boeing closed the C-17 line because there was no future orders and the handful of orders that we and a few other middle eastern countries laced would not justify their massive facility. A few militarized 747s for specialized roles may come and go but there is no way that dedicated strategic airlifters are going anywhere.

Look at how Embraer, Kawasaki and Airbus are still chugging out newer models. Even Korea's KAI is working on a dedicated military airlifter.

 

[Tejbrahmastra]

Not really. The C-17s and several other transporter models worldwide serve a very unique purpose. Whether it is landing on punishing airstrips, air-dropping troops behind enemy lines, or doing some crazy maneuvers like the Israeli Operation Thunderbolt in Uganda, civilian planes will never be as flexible and versatile as the purpose-built transporter planes.

Boeing closed the C-17 line because there was no future orders and the handful of orders that we and a few other middle eastern countries laced would not justify their massive facility. A few militarized 747s for specialized roles may come and go but there is no way that dedicated strategic airlifters are going anywhere.

Look at how Embraer, Kawasaki and Airbus are still chugging out newer models. Even Korea's KAI is working on a dedicated military airlifter.

We are seeing a lot of development in the medium lift capability, but no large carriers in development anymore. USA doesn't seem to have any brand new development in cargoes altogether.

 

[AnantS]

Staggered order helps the jurnails to get chai and whiskey with phoren trips!! A lot of them also get the goody goods as well!!

more like babu and politicos.

India is using more of these bug ticket purchases as diplomatic bargaining chips. So piecemeal orders allows them to have more things agreed. Good thing.. but too much fractured orders with wide time gaps.. is crippling forces preparation.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Not really. The C-17s and several other transporter models worldwide serve a very unique purpose. Whether it is landing on punishing airstrips, air-dropping troops behind enemy lines, or doing some crazy maneuvers like the Israeli Operation Thunderbolt in Uganda, civilian planes will never be as flexible and versatile as the purpose-built transporter planes.

Boeing closed the C-17 line because there was no future orders and the handful of orders that we and a few other middle eastern countries laced would not justify their massive facility. A few militarized 747s for specialized roles may come and go but there is no way that dedicated strategic airlifters are going anywhere.

Look at how Embraer, Kawasaki and Airbus are still chugging out newer models. Even Korea's KAI is working on a dedicated military airlifter.

I get that. It’s just at this point, US have no program to replace C17. It can do maneuvers that civilian modified versions cannot do. The USAF is being requested to choose btw more fighters and tactical weightlifters. And modified civilian version seems to be an compromise they are thinking right now.
Both Boeing and Airbus are now pitching modified civilian flights as refuelers. They have the same disadvantages as you mentioned above especially in contested environment.

 

[johnj]

I get that. It’s just at this point, US have no program to replace C17. It can do maneuvers that civilian modified versions cannot do. The USAF is being requested to choose btw more fighters and tactical weightlifters. And modified civilian version seems to be an compromise they are thinking right now.
Both Boeing and Airbus are now pitching modified civilian flights as refuelers. They have the same disadvantages as you mentioned above especially in contested environment.

USAF don't need a replacement for C17 now
USAF already having C5 super heavy cargo - 52
C17 heavy cargo - 228
c130 medium cargo - 200+
and around 50+ light cargo
Boing developed KC 46 and airbus having A330 and A310 for aerial refueling, all of them are modified civilian airliners.
FYI aerial refueling flies in safe skies unlike AWACS and AWACS keep enough distance in order to avoid enemy fire, a major reason why Russia & China developed 400+ range aam
For battle field refueling, in contested environment - there is plenty of other options, including buddy refueling, il76, c130 etc

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

USAF don't need a replacement for C17 now
USAF already having C5 super heavy cargo - 52
C17 heavy cargo - 228
c130 medium cargo - 200+
and around 50+ light cargo
Boing developed KC 46 and airbus having A330 and A310 for aerial refueling, all of them are modified civilian airliners.
FYI aerial refueling flies in safe skies unlike AWACS and AWACS keep enough distance in order to avoid enemy fire, a major reason why Russia & China developed 400+ range aam
For battle field refueling, in contested environment - there is plenty of other options, including buddy refueling, il76, c130 etc

The oldest C17 are supposed to get retired from 2028-30. In fact C5 already went through refit programme. It’s supposed to start getting retired by 2035. There are no programme at this point to replace both. A400M fits neither C17 nor C5. Anyway IAF would most likely follow what the USAF does in this regard. We are not getting more Russian transports for sure. Personally we should get the airframe rights and integrate with western engine for IL76. Would be hell of an asset

 

[FalconSlayers]

 

[FalconSlayers]

 

[rvats]

C-295 - Enhancing the IAF's Airlift Capability

- Here's an analysis on the induction of C-295 into the IAF.
- While the use case for C-295 is that it is a replacement for HS-748 Avro, in reality, looking at its specifications and capabilities, it actually adds to IAF's light transport and airlift capabilities.
- It is in the same league as the venerable An-32 but a more modern and capable aircraft.
- When the full induction happens, we'd have increased our light transport capabilities by 50% in terms of a/c.
- If you compute on the basis of payload capacity (C-295>An-32) or troop and paratroopers carrying potential (again, C-295>An-32), the increment is much more.
---
Plus, not to forget that C-295 can form the common platform across the three Services for various requirements starting with Maritime Patrol Aircraft for IN and the ICG.
----
Please share your comments, feedback and thoughts.

Video Link:

 

[FalconSlayers]

 

[Fatalis]