Russia might offer A-100 AWACS to India

[anant_s]

DRDO will probably go for a western plane instead.

yes that could well be true. There were reports that IAF isn't happy with A-50 Phalcon and that perhaps is one reason why the fleet size isn't increased beyond original 3.

 

[Abingdonboy]

yes that could well be true. There were reports that IAF isn't happy with A-50 Phalcon and that perhaps is one reason why the fleet size isn't increased beyond original 3.

Indeed, just how India is unhappy with pretty much all of its Russian origin equipment vis a vis after sales support and the supply of spares. But the reason the fleet hasn't increased beyond 3 as of now (despite talks for a follow-on 2 being on for some time) is more down to the high cost of these birds- more than $300 Million each.

 

[anant_s]

Indeed, just how India is unhappy with pretty much all of its Russian origin equipment vis a vis after sales support and the supply of spares. But the reason the fleet hasn't increased beyond 3 as of now (despite talks for a follow-on 2 being on for some time) is more down to the high cost of these birds- more than $300 Million each.

That tri-partate agreement between India, Israel and Russia took a very long time to materialize and therefore, if for next batch of AWACS, India is still looking for an Israeli radar, i think it would not be a bad idea to negotiate with Airbus or even Boeing for the platform. IL 76 prices were drastically pumped up by Russia and if some reports are to believe, even China faced the same problem for its local AWACS project.
Both Boeing and Airbus planes have a good market and presence in Indian civil aviation market and therefore using a slightly modified off-the-shelf plane for this important project will actually ease out problems for IAF in perhaps much more economical manner.
Later as Indian made AESA radar cones into fray, modifications can be done.

 

[Screambowl]

what is wrong with our Saras? Yes, the range is less, and it's a small aircraft, but can be used for AWACS too.

 

[Abingdonboy]

what is wrong with our Saras? Yes, the range is less, and it's a small aircraft, but can be used for AWACS too.

Far too small.

 

[Abingdonboy]

WAT IS SO small

The NAL Saras.

 

[Screambowl]

The NAL Saras.

 

[sancho]

But the reason the fleet hasn't increased beyond 3 as of now (despite talks for a follow-on 2 being on for some time) is more down to the high cost of these birds- more than $300 Million each.

More than the price, the hope on DRDO delivering the indigenous AWACS might be the key reason, not to mention that DRDO surely lobbied against additional Phalcons, to focus attention to their developments, we have seen similar tactics in several projects.
And I highly doubt DRDO's plans are that much cheaper, since they aim on large platforms too with A330 class aircrafts, while you could go for Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 class aircrafts at lower costs too. I still see the MTA as a logical choice for AWACS India, since it should meet the performance requirements of IAF, is larger than the EMB 145 platform and should easily carry a rotodome, but most of all would be an indigenous platform, that can be produced and modified according to our needs. Why procure a foreign platform and ask the vendors for costly modifications, when you have an own choice?

what is wrong with our Saras? Yes, the range is less, and it's a small aircraft, but can be used for AWACS too.

range, ceiling, speed, internal capacity, space for a suitable radar..., all reasons why it's a no go. It was a choice as a naval MPA with some sensors, but that might be of the list now with additional Do 228 MPAs on order.

 

[Abingdonboy]

More than the price, the hope on DRDO delivering the indigenous AWACS might be the key reason, not to mention that DRDO surely lobbied against additional Phalcons, to focus attention to their developments, we have seen similar tactics in several projects.
And I highly doubt DRDO's plans are that much cheaper, since they aim on large platforms too with A330 class aircrafts, while you could go for Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 class aircrafts at lower costs too. I still see the MTA as a logical choice for AWACS India, since it should meet the performance requirements of IAF, is larger than the EMB 145 platform and should easily carry a rotodome, but most of all would be an indigenous platform, that can be produced and modified according to our needs. Why procure a foreign platform and ask the vendors for costly modifications, when you have an own choice?

It's pure speculation at this point to put forward the MTA for the AWACS (India). If the DRDO have specifically mentioned the A330 then the MTA is going to be far too small for them.

And sir, the trend the world over is to use converted civilian airliners for AWACS (for e.g. 767, 737, EMB-145, SAAB 2000, fole (A-50, C-295, maybe A400 at some point). Additionally it was suggested the IAF was more inclined towards a civilian airliner for this role. Converted civilian airliners offer advantages in terms of range and crew comfort.

Now long (LONG) term, the ideal solution is to use an Indian civilian airliner for all Indian AWACS projects. But I don't think we should assume the MTA is up to the task.

 

[Screambowl]

range, ceiling, speed, internal capacity, space for a suitable radar..., all reasons why it's a no go. It was a choice as a naval MPA with some sensors, but that might be of the list now with additional Do 228 MPAs on order.

can it be launched from an AC? I guess yes, it only requires 600mts of strip . A modified version can be useful.

 

[sancho]

It's pure speculation at this point to put forward the MTA for the AWACS (India). If the DRDO have specifically mentioned the A330 then the MTA is going to be far too small for them.

No, since not what DRDO mentions is important, but the minimum specs IAF states for the aircraft performance. We have seen that 12000m service ceiling is a requirement for future AWACS platforms and MTA specs would comply to that. IFR capability is a given, the speed of MTA is similar to all the jet engined airliners and if MTA's cabin is still based on the IL 76 airframe, the internal size is the same as in the A50, but shorter. Don't forget mate that DRDO tends to aim far too high and mainly for pride reasons, which would make it logical that they aim at a very big platform just to prove a point and not because we would require the space or capacity.

And sir, the trend the world over is to use converted civilian airliners for AWACS (for e.g. 767, 737, EMB-145, SAAB 2000, fole (A-50, C-295, maybe A400 at some point). Additionally it was suggested the IAF was more inclined towards a civilian airliner for this role. Converted civilian airliners offer advantages in terms of range and crew comfort.

True, because it's more cost-effective to operate them since spares are available in large numbers. But then again, what makes you think a large A330 is cheaper to procure or operate than a smaller MTA? There is a reason why so many countries prefers smaller and cost-effective platforms like the E-2 or than going for larger once right and that's even why Elta and Airbus have joined for the C295 Phalcon system, or why the G550 Phalcon sells so good. The A330 should be cheaper than a 4 engined military designed A50 and with much better spare supply, but MTA is smaller and most of the spare supply will be based on Indian companies too.

can it be launched from an AC? I guess yes, it only requires 600mts of strip . A modified version can be useful.

Which is more space than you have on a carrier to take off and you have to add the weight of the radar and additional systems, which further increases the take off distance. Not to mention that the bigger problem will be the arrested landing, so don't expect too much of that aircraft. I just hope it will become reality someday as a light logistical aircraft and a trainer for transport aircraft pilots. Anything beyond would go too far at this point.

 

[Screambowl]

Which is more space than you have on a carrier to take off and you have to add the weight of the radar and additional systems, which further increases the take off distance. Not to mention that the bigger problem will be the arrested landing, so don't expect too much of that aircraft. I just hope it will become reality someday as a light logistical aircraft and a trainer for transport aircraft pilots. Anything beyond would go too far at this point.

If we install military version of this engine, won't it increase the HP by 30%, which will reduce its take off threshold.

 

[sancho]

@Abingdonboy

LIVEFIST: HAL-UAC Multirole Transport Aircraft Schematics


A basic spec comparison:

A100 / IL76MD-90A

Fuselage diameter: 4,8m
Freight compartment parameters L x W x H: 24,54m x 3,45m x 3,4m
Power plants: 4 x PS-90A-76
Cruising speed: 750 - 800 Km/h
Service ceiling: 9100 - 12100m
Flight range with payload of 52 tons: 5000Km

Il-76MD-90A | OJSC "Ilyushin Aviation Complex"

HAL MTA

Fuselage diameter: 4,8m
Freight compartment parameters L x W x H: 13,85m x 3,45m x 3,4m
Power plants: 2 x PS-90A-76
Cruising speed: 810 Km/h
Service ceiling: 13,100m
Flight range with payload of 20 tons: 2250Km

Multi-Purpose Transport Aircraft | OJSC "Ilyushin Aviation Complex"

As you can see, other than range (shown with maximum payload here, although it should be lower than 20t in AWACS role), the specs of MTA are even better than of the A100, while the cabin size is the same and with just 2 of the same engines it's operation costs and maintenance will surely be lower too, especially with commonality to the 5 x A50's we will have anyway. So why not go for an own radar system, with own rotodome, on an own aircraft?


Here some other examples of similar class AWACS:

EC-130V

ZDK-03

If we install military version of this engine, won't it increase the HP by 30%, which will reduce its take off threshold.

Doesn't solve the problem of the low general performance, higher weight and drag, nor of the arrested landing, it's simply not designed or developed for carrier operations.

 

[sathya]

MTA will take more time to get ready, and modifications for AWACS May take extra couple of years.

Range is around 2500 Kms , which is only half of similar aircrafts available commercially .

I am all for indegenious effort , but this will take too long to develop .

Cabs might need aircraft sooner than when MTA can be available .

 

[Echo_419]

The NAL Saras.

LOL