[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

I believe that the A400M is bigger and has a higher payload capacity despite being a turboprop (but probably costs a lot more).

AFAIK the A400M definitely has a much higher payload capacity than the C-130. It's sort of in this weird spot between the biggest Hercules and the C-17 I think in terms of its airlift capacity.

Also, speaking of Belgium, it seems that their used C130Hs have been sold to Pakistan - funny that they would rather buy used Western aircraft instead of brand new Chinese aircraft that's surely available to them.

To be fair, the C-130s are such reliable workhorses, that's just clever business from the PAF surely? I'm sure they'd get decent utility out of them.

At this point, I've seen more images of IAF aircraft being refueled by foreign A330 MRTTs from UAE, France and Australia than our own Il-78s

And yet that will be the closest the IAF comes to actually fielding the MRTT in the role it was expected to fill in Indian colours.

I wonder if the Emiratis get paid for this!

I can't remember where exactly I read this but yes - the recipient of the fuel does indeed need to pay. It's not a quid pro quo arrangement far as I recall. Not sure if you pay mates rates either.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

AFAIK the A400M definitely has a much higher payload capacity than the C-130.

Actually, I was comparing the payload of the A400M with the C-390. If wikipedia is correct, the payload comparison goes as follows:

C130J < C-390 < A400M < IL-76 < C-17

The C-390 also seems to fall right in between the C-130J and A400M in terms of size. However, the troops and pallet loading capacity of the C-130J and C-390 seem to be quite similar and much smaller than the A400M.

I really wonder if there are any benefits of the turbofan engine in the C-390 given that the contemporary military aircraft of this size seem to be all turbo-props!

[ads11]

Ah sorry, we were indeed talking about the C-390, brain fade on my part.

In terms of the turbofan benefits to the above, logically speed should be one but other than that, is hard to see what other benefits there are if the load capacity isn't terribly higher than the Hercules. The turbo prop would probably be more fuel efficient and I guess would have greater range?

The other jet left out in the comparison is the Y-20. That's obviously going to become increasingly important in our regional context and globally, once they iron out their WS-20 engine.

I was also thinking, when the Japanese engineered their ASW warfare P-1 aircraft, they made a transport variant of it too, the C-2. That bridges the gap between the C-390 and A-400M. However like most Japanese aircraft, it's had scant export success despite the post Abe era loosening of restrictions. I wonder why, I'd imagine they'd be made to high standards.

Nothing came of the deal for the ShinMaywa US-2 eventually did it? I guess it's far down on the priority list post COVID.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

In terms of the turbofan benefits to the above, logically speed should be one but other than that, is hard to see what other benefits there are if the load capacity isn't terribly higher than the Hercules. The turbo prop would probably be more fuel efficient and I guess would have greater range?

Moreover, turboprops are probably more useful for operating in unprepared airfields as would be expected from an IAF aircraft of this size since strategic lifting would be left to the C17s and IL-76s. The C130J might even work out to be significantly cheaper as well thanks to the economies of scale afforded by the USAF's massive fleet and the fact that the IAF already operates these aircraft. Also, I believe Tata already manufactures some of the parts of the C130J such as the empennages in India, so local assembly should be possible. Eventually, it would make sense for India to develop an aircraft of this type on its own.

The other jet left out in the comparison is the Y-20. That's obviously going to become increasingly important in our regional context and globally, once they iron out their WS-20 engine.

Ah yes, and probably right behind the C17 in the comparison. Also, probably the military cargo aircraft with the highest payload capacity that is still in actual production.

I was also thinking, when the Japanese engineered their ASW warfare P-1 aircraft, they made a transport variant of it too, the C-2. That bridges the gap between the C-390 and A-400M. However like most Japanese aircraft, it's had scant export success despite the post Abe era loosening of restrictions. I wonder why, I'd imagine they'd be made to high standards.

The problem is, while the Japanese could now sell their advanced systems to their allies, they didn't do the aggressive marketing that's needed to compete with American, European or even Brazilian offerings. These aircraft compete for the same market as American and European aircrafts, not Chinese or Russian aircrafts where the quality advantage is lost due to higher purchase costs and their preference to sell to allies - the ones who already have access to American & European aircraft. It is really hard to compete with companies like Boeing or Airbus in marketing, for example, it is said that the A220 saw even more success thanks to the marketing machine of Airbus though the aircraft was already fairly successful under Bombardier before the Boeing-induced fiasco that necessitated the sale of the program to Airbus.

Nothing came of the deal for the ShinMaywa US-2 eventually did it? I guess it's far down on the priority list post COVID.

The US-2 deal was put on the back-burner before COVID itself as the US-2 is quite an expensive aircraft and the Navy had other priorities. I mean, the Navy would probably rather purchase more P-8is instead of the US-2s despite its utility.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Moreover, turboprops are probably more useful for operating in unprepared airfields as would be expected from an IAF aircraft of this size since strategic lifting would be left to the C17s and IL-76s. The C130J might even work out to be significantly cheaper as well thanks to the economies of scale afforded by the USAF's massive fleet and the fact that the IAF already operates these aircraft. Also, I believe Tata already manufactures some of the parts of the C130J such as the empennages in India, so local assembly should be possible. Eventually, it would make sense for India to develop an aircraft of this type on its own.

You know I was thinking just this - what if India decided to produce it's own turboprop transport? I guess the rationale I saw is for it to be worth it, you'd need to target a category where you'd have enough domestic orders to justify the capital outlay in terms of development cost, split over each unit. So perhaps we're looking at something like the C-295 (but here the agreement is for Tata to make the bulk in India itself so that scuppers the analogy somewhat). But even if we persist, I guess you'd like to hope that maybe you'd get additional utility out of a civilian variant but here too, that market is even more cut throat. Another thing I was thinking is that domestic production is really necessary for those critical technologies that could be denied under adverse conditions (sanctions, war time, etc). Just asking but to what extent is the transport fleet impacted by this? (Ultimately of course total self reliance is the goal). Does it just make sense maybe to do what was done with the C-295 order for any add on orders of the C-130 but using Tata assembly facilities?

Ah yes, and probably right behind the C17 in the comparison. Also, probably the military cargo aircraft with the highest payload capacity that is still in actual production.

IIRC before the whole Ukraine mess kicked off with the Crimean landgrab in 2014, I think the Chinese made overtures to Antonov about restarting the An-225 production line! That would've been something. I think this was roughly the same time as when the PLAN was acquiring the equally giant Zubr class hovercraft from the Ukrainians (or was it Russia?) so maybe the PLA was just going through a super size fix at that particular juncture.

All that being said, I think you're right. The Y-20 might be the heaviest airlifter in current production. Isn't that a damning look particularly for the Pentagon.

The problem is, while the Japanese could now sell their advanced systems to their allies, they didn't do the aggressive marketing that's needed to compete with American, European or even Brazilian offerings.

Real shame this considering how interesting some of these platforms are. I think the P-1 is a very interesting aircraft whereas in the transport domain I'd like to know more about the C-2. I guess the Japanese submarine export deals also suffer from half hearted marketing pushes (probably has a lot to do with intrinsic reticence borne out of their post WW2 constitution).

it is said that the A220 saw even more success thanks to the marketing machine of Airbus though the aircraft was already fairly successful under Bombardier before the Boeing-induced fiasco that necessitated the sale of the program to Airbus.

I think the lifting of the Dept of Commerce restrictions thanks to the US assembly facility of Airbus, combined with the fact that they obviously have their mammoth sales infrastructure played a huge role no doubt. Also it arrived at Airbus almost at the most opportune time to fill the very gap in the market created by post COVID air travel.

I mean, the Navy would probably rather purchase more P-8is instead of the US-2s despite its utility.

No arguing with this line of thinking, it makes the most sense.

[DhinaStark94]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Moreover, turboprops are probably more useful for operating in unprepared airfields as would be expected from an IAF aircraft of this size since strategic lifting would be left to the C17s and IL-76s. The C130J might even work out to be significantly cheaper as well thanks to the economies of scale afforded by the USAF's massive fleet and the fact that the IAF already operates these aircraft.

The problem with Turboprops is that they're not as fast as jets nor as efficient. During war, time is more critical than money. Sure Turboprops have durability and flexibility benefits but not all aircraft in an Airforce need to be like that. Very few are needed for humanitarian and emergency applications. Plus with the Tata-Airbus collaboration for C295 being fast-tracked, there is no need for more Turboprops. Thats why Embraer's C390 makes more sense more the C130.

[sarathlal]

Maiden flight of the Autonomous Flying Wing Technology Demonstrator was carried out successfully by Defence Research and Development Organisation today!

Video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIm8Zu3EYe8

Ghatak is an autonomous stealthy unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV), being developed by DRDO for the Indian Air Force.



Also read more of these from an earlier post in this thread: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/comme...ml#post4349210 (Combat Aircraft of the Indian Air Force)

[ads11]

Originally Posted by sarathlal

Maiden flight of the Autonomous Flying Wing Technology Demonstrator was carried out successfully by Defence Research and Development Organisation today!

The scale of this demonstrator is deceptive, normally I'd expect the demonstrator to be 10-20% smaller than the final product but I hadn't expected it to be quite so petite. Is this a scale model demonstrator and if so are there plans for a fuller size one down the line? My eyes could really be deceiving me here because I'm really struggling to gauge how big this thing actually is.

Thanks for sharing though!

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by ads11

The scale of this demonstrator is deceptive, normally I'd expect the demonstrator to be 10-20% smaller than the final product

An aerodynamic proof of concept or a hydrodynamic hull testing can be done with a model that is only a few feet in size. So long as its shape, aerodynamic surfaces, weight distribution and powerplant are all exactly to scale to the millimetre of the real thing it will establish what tests are being conducted. In a ship's hull testing tank or a aircraft testing wind tunnel the testing is done with a super accurate scale model.

[dragracer567]

According to these screengrabs from some videos on twitter, they seem to have tested two different versions - one with and one without vertical stabilizers!

IMHO perhaps this petite version might be useful as well for certain types of missions!

[srvm]

Originally Posted by ads11

The scale of this demonstrator is deceptive, normally I'd expect the demonstrator to be 10-20% smaller than the final product but I hadn't expected it to be quite so petite. Is this a scale model demonstrator and if so are there plans for a fuller size one down the line? My eyes could really be deceiving me here because I'm really struggling to gauge how big this thing actually is.

Thanks for sharing though!

This vehicle is meant to be a technology demonstration platform. Not meant to be production UAV. It's about 4m in length and span. (Cue the sub-4m jokes from BHPians ). I have some idea of what those technologies are but I'm not sure if I'm permitted to share them publicly.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

According to these screengrabs from some videos on twitter, they seem to have tested two different versions - one with and one without vertical stabilizers!

IMHO perhaps this petite version might be useful as well for certain types of missions!......

Yup. 2 versions. Both for technology demonstrations. Not meant for mass production.

[aim120]

Originally Posted by ads11

The scale of this demonstrator is deceptive, normally I'd expect the demonstrator to be 10-20% smaller than the final product but I hadn't expected it to be quite so petite. Is this a scale model demonstrator and if so are there plans for a fuller size one down the line? My eyes could really be deceiving me here because I'm really struggling to gauge how big this thing actually is.

Thanks for sharing though!

To get a reference, the white runway marker is around 29 meter in length.
So my best guess would be 2 to 2.5 meter in length.

[SmartCat]

Not sure if we should take this with a dash, pinch or bag of salt:

IAF will finally get a strategic bomber - Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack
https://bharatkarnad.com/2022/08/07/...ategic-bomber/

This was disclosed in a throwaway line about a “bomber” being acquired by IAF, which was preceded by a generous acknowledgement — “Mr Bharat Karnad will be happy to know”, by the former CAS, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha. He was delivering the keynote speech yesterday at the first edition of the ‘Chanakya Dialogues’ hosted by the Chanakya Foundation in New Delhi. On further questioning by me, he confirmed that the aircraft in question was the Tu-160.

The negotiations with Russia are apparently in the final stages for securing on lease six – a third of a squadron — better than nothing! of the supersonic, fly-by-wire, 4-man crewed Tu-160.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Not sure if we should take this with a dash, pinch or bag of salt:

IAF will finally get a strategic bomber - Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack
https://bharatkarnad.com/2022/08/07/...ategic-bomber/

Attachment 2343008

Ah now I get what V.Narayan referred to in the IN thread. Huh, talk about a surprise announcement - going to have to press X for doubt on this one.

I know the Tu-160 is regarded with particular fondness within Russia, and Putin announced the modernisation programme a few years ago - is India being roped in to help with funding the new builds? Wouldn't be the first Russian programme to need a bit of a fiscal piggyback off an export customer.

Heavy skepticism aside, I can't recall any other recent example of a country selling a strategic bomber, as such there's precious few options actually available on the market. I'm trying to figure out how long standing any internal IAF push for a strategic bomber has been. It's never been something mooted publicly by IAF brass in the past (to my knowledge at least), because it's never quite been something that fits in with India's force posture. As far as defence stories go, this is quite the googly. If this had come from the Russian side, I'd wager there could be an element of announcement balancing so to speak, ie, the Russians wanting to make a major Indo-Russian announcement on the back of the big Indo-US naval repair news.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by ads11

Ah now I get what V.Narayan referred to in the IN thread. Huh, talk about a surprise announcement - going to have to press X for doubt on this one.

I know the Tu-160 is regarded with particular fondness within Russia, and Putin announced the modernisation programme a few years ago - is India being roped in to help with funding the new builds? Wouldn't be the first Russian programme to need a bit of a fiscal piggyback off an export customer.

Heavy skepticism aside, I can't recall any other recent example of a country selling a strategic bomber, as such there's precious few options actually available on the market. I'm trying to figure out how long standing any internal IAF push for a strategic bomber has been. It's never been something mooted publicly by IAF brass in the past (to my knowledge at least), because it's never quite been something that fits in with India's force posture. As far as defence stories go, this is quite the googly. If this had come from the Russian side, I'd wager there could be an element of announcement balancing so to speak, ie, the Russians wanting to make a major Indo-Russian announcement on the back of the big Indo-US naval repair news.

It’s not exactly new, infact, this news has been going around since the INS Chakra II was leased from the Russians. There were some solid rumours that Tu-160s would be leased along with the next Akula-class submarine from Russia which is (or was) expected to be inducted by 2025. Note that all the earlier reports were about leasing the Tu-160s, not purchasing them outright.

Now, it's hard to say if either of these two contracts will actually bear fruit even though the nuclear submarine lease was pretty much confirmed before the war. A slew of weapons purchases have either been canceled, inexplicably put on hold or indefinitely delayed such as the deal to assemble AK-203s in India (the contracts for this had already been signed IIRC), 48 more Mi-17 v5s, additional Ka-31 AEW helicopters for the Vikrant, used Mig-29s & 12 new Su-30 MKIs, the deal to upgrade the Su-30 MKIs etc. All these contracts are extremely important to plug gaps in the Indian military. Now, there is no formal acknowledgment explaining the reason but a combination of the Russians diverting their resources to the war effort instead of exports and tough western sanctions probably had a role to play.

Now, when smaller deals with Russia are struggling to get through, it's not hard to assume that strategic deals such as the lease of SSNs and strategic bombers will find rough patches of their own though 2025 is still three years away. It needs to be said that as things stand today, Russia is still the only country that would actually lease such strategic resources to India, so its important that relations between India and Russia remain warm. Moreover, if this new cold war does lead to two ideologically competing factions in which India and Russia end up on opposing sides, continued warm relations between India and Russia might be the only thing preventing WW2.