'Contract For Six More C-130Js Definite'

[sancho]

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.

True, that could be a point, although one have to question if we need 6, or even 12 more C130Js in the tanker role, especially if we have not many helicopters that could be refuelled in air. The only once that come to my mind now, are th Ka AEW helicopter that got some modification to extend range. I guess the new AW 101 VIP will have this feature too and possibly the Apaches if we buy them, but that's it right?

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

100% with you!

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.

I want to see turbo prob RTAs in addition to MRTA with jet engines.

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

Possibly, but the higher numbers of C130s, the less numbers of MRTAs, so only take those versions that really make a difference, because they are specialised compared to MRTA, that's what I would suggest.

 

[Gessler]

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?

MRTA tanker??!! what in the world is that!!! are we developing a IFR tanker version of MRTA???

 

[Tshering22]

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.

MRTA is a different weight category than C-130J or the C-17.

So there is no way in the world that MRTA will be affected as it has a niche place in IAF's inventory with 45 committed units from our side.

 

[Tshering22]

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?

MRTA is lighter and smaller than Super Hercs and is not meant for that. I'd prefer if the MRTA can be converted into a gunship like the AC-130 heavy gunship.

An MRTA gunship capable of firing 30 mm cannon rounds and 105 mm shells from air would be a huge boost to the LCH-Dhruv CAS capabilities.

 

[sancho]

MRTA is lighter and smaller than Super Hercs and is not meant for that.

That's not correct, they are in the exact same class, only real difference are the engines!

MRTA vs C130J-30


- Length: 33.2 m vs 34.36 m
- Height: 10 m vs 11.84 m
- Capacity (paratroopers/passengers): 88 to 100 vs 92 to 128
- Payload: 20,000 kg vs 19,958 kg
- Max. takeoff weight: 68,000 kg vs 74,389 kg
- Powerplant: 2 × Aviadvigatel PD-14 turbofans vs 4 × Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3 turboprop

The point is, MRTA is aimed to be the long term replacement of the Hawker and AN 32 transport aircrafts, while C130J-30s are meant mainly for special operations and as an addition to the fleet, not to replace older aircrafts. So both will serve beside eachother, but in different roles, that's why more than 2 squads of C130J-30s are not needed.