'Contract For Six More C-130Js Definite'

[ganimi kawa]

Lot of info to discuss; hence the new thread.

'Contract For Six More C-130Js Definite'

An Indian government contract for six more American-built C-130J-30 Super Hercules tactical transport airplanes is "definite" according to an Indian Air Force official on the secretariat of the Air Marshal who oversees procurement. Lockheed-Martin began the effort to get India to exercise options on the original March 2008 contract shortly after it was signed, though the IAF had identified a need for at least 18 such airplanes.

The officer, who asked not to be named, told me, "The view is you cannot achieve very much with six aircraft. There has to be a minimum number for effective squadron service. This has been agreed upon between us and the Government. It is only a question of when they choose to exercise the option.

It is an FMS deal, so there will obviously be some diplomatic leverage. As far as we are concerned, we know we are getting the additional airplanes."

I asked the officer if the IAF had expressed an interest in operating more than 12 C-130s. His response: "Let's be very clear -- the 20-ton airlifter type is going to be extremely useful to our air maintenance operations across the board.

The C-130s are coming. We will have 12 of them. We will make good use of them. But we will also have the MRTA from early 2017 if all goes according to plan. We cannot ignore that project, since we are investing over $300-million in that. We can certainly operate more than 12 C-130s, but we have to rationalize types."

Either way, it is unlikely that a follow-on contract for six additional C-130Js will be signed before next year. Lockheed-Martin will again be bringing a USAF C-130J to AeroIndia 2011 next February, and is working with the IAF to show off its first C-130J (scheduled to arrive days before the Bangalore show begins) for the first time at AeroIndia.

 

[Bhairava]

heheheh-----not needed anymore....

OT: Good move....But hope it doesnt have an adverse impact on the MRTA Program which is more important than this.

 

[SpArK]

How can we discuss C-130 acquisition in the C-17 acquisition thread...

I have posted it earlier.. anyway lets discuss it .. no issues...

 

[ganimi kawa]

Sorry, benny bhai! I searched for the primary thread of which there was none, hence the mistake. I think there are following important points in the post at livefist..

1. IAF had identified a need for at least 18 such airplanes.
"The view is you cannot achieve very much with six aircraft. There has to be a minimum number for effective squadron service.

- For which role, special ops (as the current order is optimised for) or medium to low airlift capabilities?

2."It is an FMS deal, so there will obviously be some diplomatic leverage. As far as we are concerned, we know we are getting the additional airplanes."

- What kind of leverage are we talking about and what this leverage will translate into?

3."Let's be very clear -- the 20-ton airlifter type is going to be extremely useful to our air maintenance operations across the board. The C-130s are coming. We will have 12 of them. We will make good use of them. But we will also have the MRTA from early 2017 if all goes according to plan. We cannot ignore that project, since we are investing over $300-million in that. We can certainly operate more than 12 C-130s, but we have to rationalize types."

- AFAIK the MRTA is going to be in the 40 ton category and not the 20 ton. Though the fact that MRTA is being factored into future acquisition programes is heartening. Shows the confidence IAF has in the project.
Also induction in 2017 means that MRTA can find many other roles in IAF apart from pure transport!

 

[SpArK]

Sorry, benny bhai! I searched for the primary thread of which there was none, hence the mistake. I think there are following important points in the post at livefist..

1. IAF had identified a need for at least 18 such airplanes.
"The view is you cannot achieve very much with six aircraft. There has to be a minimum number for effective squadron service.

- For which role, special ops (as the current order is optimised for) or medium to low airlift capabilities?

2."It is an FMS deal, so there will obviously be some diplomatic leverage. As far as we are concerned, we know we are getting the additional airplanes."

- What kind of leverage are we talking about and what this leverage will translate into?

No it was my mistake.. i posted it on an irrelevant thread of mine.. been busy to notice it u see.

 

[ganimi kawa]

No it was my mistake.. i posted it on an irrelevant thread of mine.. been busy to notice it u see.

No problem!

OT: Good move....But hope it doesnt have an adverse impact on the MRTA Program which is more important than this.

The way they are planning the acquisition does give an impression that the IAF has faith in the MRTA.

However, Americans will be hoping for that project to fail. MRTA failure means more orders for the C-130!

 

[sancho]

Hi ganimi kawa

- For which role, special ops (as the current order is optimised for) or medium to low airlift capabilities?

Initially it was said to be for special ops, but why do we need 12 - 18 aircrafts for special ops?

- What kind of leverage are we talking about and what this leverage will translate into?

Payback for UNC support?

- AFAIK the MRTA is going to be in the 40 ton category and not the 20 ton. Though the fact that MRTA is being factored into future acquisition programes is heartening. Shows the confidence IAF has in the project.
Also induction in 2017 means that MRTA can find many other roles in IAF apart from pure transport!

No, MRTA is in the same 20t category as C130Js, our IL 76 are 45 - 50t and MRTA will have the same cabin, but will be shorter. It was reported that even less payload would have been good for IAF too, maybe because the aircrafts that aimed to be replaced by it have clearly less payload (Hawker Siddeley 5t, AN 32 6-8t if I'm not wrong)

However, I don't understand why we simply buy more if we upgrade the AN 32s anyway and will co-develop MRTA.

 

[Bhairava]

The way they are planning the acquisition does give an impression that the IAF has faith in the MRTA.

However, Americans will be hoping for that project to fail. MRTA failure means more orders for the C-130!

Then they sure must summon all their guardian angels for luck because this name - Ilyushin - has been one of the most renowed and sucessful cargo plane manufacturer in the history of Aircraft making.

Not disrespecting HAL in any way, but Ilyushin is in a league of its own.

 

[SpArK]

Hi ganimi kawa



Initially it was said to be for special ops, but why do we need 12 - 18 aircrafts for special ops?

Payback for UNC support?

This article from LM will help more on it.

India's C-130J | Lockheed Martin

 

[JohnyD]

No comparision between C-130 and MTA (which in still on paper)...simpley put C-130 would be more of power projection machines readily available if your pocket is full of hard cash whereas MTA would be built and used on massive scale....we need america to fulfill our aspirations ....russians are good friends but not enough to meet all demands of modern and growing India...see the difference...Bush promised and we got NSG waiver...now Barak promised UN Seat and I believe its is not so far from the reality...this is the basic difference between America and other friendly countries like France, UK, Russia....they can provide support but cant change global laws/rules for us....

 

[SpArK]

Another interesting combination

Italian Eurofighter Typhoon refuels from C-130J in flight :: Air-Attack.com



---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 AM ----------

 

[sancho]

Another interesting combination

Italian Eurofighter Typhoon refuels from C-130J in flight :: Air-Attack.com



---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 AM ----------

And now imagine FGFA beeing refuelled from an MRTA tanker! What do you prefer, the 2 aircrafts we co-develop, or the 2 we simply bought?

 

[CONNAN]

And now imagine FGFA beeing refuelled from an MRTA tanker! What do you prefer, the 2 aircrafts we co-develop, or the 2 we simply bought?

 

[ganimi kawa]

Hi ganimi kawa



1.Initially it was said to be for special ops, but why do we need 12 - 18 aircrafts for special ops?




2.Payback for UNC support?




3.No, MRTA is in the same 20t category as C130Js, our IL 76 are 45 - 50t and MRTA will have the same cabin, but will be shorter. It was reported that even less payload would have been good for IAF too, maybe because the aircrafts that aimed to be replaced by it have clearly less payload (Hawker Siddeley 5t, AN 32 6-8t if I'm not wrong)

4.However, I don't understand why we simply buy more if we upgrade the AN 32s anyway and will co-develop MRTA.

Hi sancho,

1. I'm confused with the same question. At 92 paratroopers per plane six c130s will drop 552 paratroopers in one trip. That is a substantial no. for a para drop.
I think IAF is looking at roles other than the SF for the C 130j.

One such unique role may be helicopter refueler. It will be extremely difficult for the MRTA (being a twin-turbofan craft) to play this role.

2.Maybe. I hope they do not decide on the MMRCA based on this UNSC agenda.


3.My bad. About the AN32, post the ukrainian upgrade, they are suposed to have 7.5 ton capability. There is definitely a scope for smaller, turboprop powered variant of MRTA to replace almost 104 AN32s in IAF service.

4. I guess it is a short term measure to maintain the airlift capacity.

 

[Abingdonboy]

does anyone else find it odd this has been decided despite the IAF not having received a SINGLE one. and most importantly, no conclusion of the various deals that have seen important equipment STRIPPED off the plane. any idea what the IAF plans to do to replace this important hardware?