Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Midair Refuellers Tender - Airbus A330 MRTT Vs Boeing KC-46 Vs IL-78

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by PARIKRAMA, Feb 26, 2017.

  1. somedude

    somedude Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    957
    Country Flag:
    Afghanistan
    The EV-22 only exists in computer graphics. I don't think that it would be as practical as they claim it to be. The huge tiltrotors and the folding wing make it quite complicated to stick a big radar pod on the top of the aircraft: it needs to be placed on the wing itself (not on the body, because on the body it'd collide with the wing) and so it can only be placed on the wing rotation axis which is also where it is the most at risk of getting clipped by the rotors, knowing that they tilt between vertical and horizontal positions, including the entire range of intermediary diagonal positions.

    [​IMG]
    V-22 fully folded

    All these constraints would make the maintenance of that aircraft type even more of a headache. And if you figure that you could as well just get rid of the wing folding mechanism, then sure, but then you also make it harder to use on an aircraft carrier (wings are definitely too cumbersome to make it use the lift and put it in the hangar when unfolded) and if you use it from land bases, why aren't you using a real AWACS instead?

    Really it's a lot cheaper to go for an E-2 Hawkeye. Heck, you could probably buy out the canceled Yak-44 project and restart it and it would end up cheaper than trying to operate a fleet of EV-22.
     
  2. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    That's not correct anymore, since the availability and costs had improved over time. But they are costlier than any helicopter, because they are so much more capable, especially in the AEW role. The edge the V22 has over Ka31 in range, endurance, or ceiling to increase AEW coverage is crucial, to provide proper carrier wing operations. The Russians forced us to buy it with the carrier, but that doesn't mean we have to limit ourselves with it.
    Btw Boeing seems to plan with a mobile radar, that will be lowered from the ramp and can be rolled on and of, same for the tanker config.
     
    GSLV Mk III and Indian Jatt like this.
  3. Indian Jatt

    Indian Jatt Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    179
    Country Flag:
    India
    I agree sir, German engineering Marvel's took Wehrmacht to their end, the Maus, Gustav rail gun, horten ho 229, land kruzer p1000 ratte, me 262 and etc, these weapons were awesome and effective, but were difficult to produce and maintain, thus during wars and battles, these systems broke down and required immediate support, which rendered them useless....
     
  4. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    Nope, but because Indian forces send out RFIs for equipment they need and neither did IAF made such for helicopters with refuelling capability, nor to did they asked for a tanker with boom refuelling as shown in the article.

    Not at all, since the main difference are the external pods that integrates the refuelling hose (1 on each wing), while the cargo hold can hold additional fuel tanks that can be rolled on or off. Without them you can do the same roles as any normal C130J and that's the same case for C295 or A400M.

    There are plenty reasons to do it, it just depends on the requirements of the customer!
    We already talked about one reason, refuelling helicopters, which is not possible with fast flying jet aircrafts.
    Another reason is the fact that you require proper air bases to operate larger tanker aircrafts, while an A400M or KC130J can be operated from forwarded bases. Remember the Uttarakhand flood operations, where IAF needed to refuel Mi 17s and Dhruvs on a small airstrip, because the helicopters can't be refuelled in air. They had to lift a tanker vehicle with the Mi26 and sent the C130J with fuel to refuel the vehicles.
    An A400M tanker, could had carried the vehicle and fuel to that airstrip, which neither the KC130J, let alone an A330 MRTT could do.
    This multi role capability of being able to refuel other aircrafts, but retain full transport capability is even another reason why countries like New Zealand conidering to buy A400M not only for transport, but at the same time for the tanker role too, since it's more cost-effective to use 1 aircraft in more roles. That's even the advantage of an A330 MRTT over an IL78, which is a dedicated tanker only. For Red Flag exercise 2008 we needed 1 IL78 + 1 IL76, while a single A330MRTT might had been enough. Similarly, the A400M can be used in more roles than the A330 MRTT, which again gives more value for the money we spend.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
    Agent_47 likes this.
  5. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    Some of them were real game changers, but either came too late in the war, when production and operation was difficult due to allied bombing raids and cut supply chains, or were cut by an insane dictator, who didn't listened to his generals and scientists, otherwise they might of put more weight on producing the aircrafts, rather than useless long range artillery and missiles to attack London.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
    Indian Jatt likes this.
  6. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    2,685

    Found an older post that I made on the advantages of an A400M in IAF:

    http://indiandefence.com/threads/iaf-impressed-with-airbus-a400m.31089/page-3#post-409590
     
  7. Indian Jatt

    Indian Jatt Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    179
    Country Flag:
    India
    I agree sir, since 2009 the support systems and mission times have increased tremendously, but still its a very costly system....
     
    Sancho likes this.
  8. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    That's why I wouldn't want to see it on the LPDs, because for basic transport roles, it's way to costly unless you have the operational requirements of the US.
    AEW and tanker roles on the other side, are force multipliers and can be a game changer compared to our potential opponents. So in this case the costs can be justified. Not to mention that we have to keep in mind, that the carrier itself, is the main cost factor, not it's airwing. If IN can't afford to operate capable aircrafts, they shouldn't go for carriers in the first place.
     
  9. The enlightened

    The enlightened 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    114
    That require additional plumbing on the wings as well in the fuselage to connect the fuselage fuel tanks.
    You are thoroughly confused and contradicting yourself.

    But first - HVT like A2A refueller is not going to operate from FOB which will obviously not be stocked to refuel an airliner/transport. Hauling outsized cargo is a nice capability but does not compensate for other major deficiencies in transferable fuel, time at station, range and so on. Which is why all countries who can afford it prefer A330's and 767's over A400 leaving the role of hauling cargo to dedicated assets. The only exception being in the two cases I pointed out - refuelling rotors and supplementing the cargo role. Depending on which argument you want to win, you are arguing for and against helichopper requirement. Very difficult to get a hold of what you want to say.
     
  10. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    2,685
    As I said, that's up to the customer requirements!
    In our case it's an advantage to be able to use more air strips and not only large bases, be it in the humanitarian missions as proven or in future conflicts in the north east, when transporting fuel will be an issue, by the lack of suitable landing strips.
    Not to mention that it doesn't limit IAFs tanker operations when larger bases are destroyed.

    That's wrong, since there is already plenty A400 customers, that are showing interest in the MRTT capability or KC130Js next to larger tankers like A330 or KC767. France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Australia is considering A400 or KC130 tankers, Brazil is planing tanker versions of their KC390 as well, while having A330s...
    It simply is not a matter of money, but specific capabilities and advantages A400 or KC130 tankers offer, that larger tanker aircrafts doesn't!
     
  11. Agent_47

    Agent_47 Admin - Blog Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,261
    Likes Received:
    4,053
    Country Flag:
    India
  12. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    2,685
  13. somedude

    somedude Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    957
    Country Flag:
    Afghanistan
    That's from 2013, though. This went nowhere and was scrapped in 2016.

    As for the "no boom" thing, while the article does mention that the IAF's combat aircraft use probe-and-drogue, what about the IAF C-17 and C-130? Are they fitted with probes?
     
  14. Gessler

    Gessler Mod MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,333
    Likes Received:
    8,110
    Country Flag:
    India
    C-130J sure...but C17 and P8I have only boom system receptor.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. somedude

    somedude Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    957
    Country Flag:
    Afghanistan
    Thanks. I guess C-17 and P-8I have enough range that they shouldn't need aerial refueling often, but still it'd make sense for the IAF to get tankers with a boom in addition to multiple drogues.
     

Share This Page