India's New Tanker RFI — Military Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

India's New Tanker RFI

DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8180 times:

India has issued another RFI for a fresh MRTT competition.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...h-request-for-tanker-purchase.html

Quote:
"India's defence ministry has issued a fresh request for proposals to aerospace concerns in Europe, Russia and the USA for six inflight refuelling aircraft, reviving a contest worth an estimated $2 billion.

New Delhi had previously selected Airbus Military's A330-200-based multi-role tanker transport to meet its air force requirement, but cancelled the programme before a contract could be signed. Its decision followed pressure from India's finance ministry regarding the proposed cost of the deal."

Will it be consumated this time around?

"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:

KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8172 times:

That would be an average price of $333.33M for each of the 6 tankers. But now that India has C-17s and P-8s on order will they want a Boom on their tankers. IIRC the earlier A-330MRTT India canceled had two WARPs and a centerline drogue, but no Boom.

I can see proposals for the:
A-330MRTT (RAAF version or RAF version)
KC-310 (used conversions)
B-767-200ER/-300ER (used conversions from IAI or Boeing)
Il-78MK
KC-767A (Italian version)
KC-767J (Japanese version)
KC-767NG
KC-767AT
KC-135E (possibly upgraded to KC-135R)
A-400M tanker
KC-130J
KC-390
A-340-500/-600 (used conversions or new build MRTTs from EADS)
Others?????

bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8086 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
P-8

If the P-8 UARSI is the same as Wedgetail, there is a probe adapter available. I don't know if this option is available for the P-8.

I wonder if "one stop shopping" have any weight in their selection criteria

F-18 . . . down the road?

bikerthai

Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.

ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8050 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
That would be an average price of $333.33M for each of the 6 tankers. But now that India has C-17s and P-8s on order will they want a Boom on their tankers. IIRC the earlier A-330MRTT India canceled had two WARPs and a centerline drogue, but no Boom.

Either Boeing or Airbus could win this one. I wouldn't be so bold as to even suggest Boeing has this one in the bag.

Dare to dream; dream big!

Shmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 451 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7918 times:

Heres some more news

India has placed orders for 4 more P-8Is for the navy bringing the total to 12. The Indian cabinet is yet to approve the Communications interoperability agreement after which America has promised to allow access to the breakthrough highly sensitive features of the plane .

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...get-bigger/articleshow/6655253.cms

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
KC-310

If the IAF had some sense of reality that money doesn't grow on trees - then should be used air India/indian airlines A-310 MRTT conversions.... that way India would only pay for the conversion

Alas common sense and India can seldom be used .... particularly galling given that the A-310's are being sold off while AI gets a huge bailout for continuing incompetence.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 2):
F-18 . . . down the road?

No - from virtually every source coming out of Delhi - Vayu Sena Bhavan is adamant that it will not choose an American plane. Unlike the navy which has very little history with American equipment - The Air Force in the past has had some very bitter disappointments with American export laws......................... C-17s and Hercs fine ............... but not something as important as fighters.

Vi veri universum vivus vici

KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7887 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 3):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
That would be an average price of $333.33M for each of the 6 tankers. But now that India has C-17s and P-8s on order will they want a Boom on their tankers. IIRC the earlier A-330MRTT India canceled had two WARPs and a centerline drogue, but no Boom.

Either Boeing or Airbus could win this one. I wouldn't be so bold as to even suggest Boeing has this one in the bag.

I was not suggesting that Boeing has this order. I have listed several Boeing, EADS, other OEMs, and conversion companies that could win this order.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
I can see proposals for the:
A-330MRTT (RAAF version or RAF version)
KC-310 (used conversions)
B-767-200ER/-300ER (used conversions from IAI or Boeing)
Il-78MK
KC-767A (Italian version)
KC-767J (Japanese version)
KC-767NG
KC-767AT
KC-135E (possibly upgraded to KC-135R)
A-400M tanker
KC-130J
KC-390
A-340-500/-600 (used conversions or new build MRTTs from EADS)
Others?????

CMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7796 times:

I got to tell you if I was shopping for tankers I would look very close at the Arizona desert. Those 135s would be a good buy for 15 years or so of service.

KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7702 times:

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 6):
I got to tell you if I was shopping for tankers I would look very close at the Arizona desert. Those 135s would be a good buy for 15 years or so of service.

Perhaps longer than that. The KC-135R is projected to fly until at least 2040. The KC-135E is close to that. It would make sense to buy the "E" and upgrade it to the "R".

DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7676 times:

With GE's F414 engine selected for the Tejas, would Super Bugs be too far behind?.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ralph Duenas - Jetwash Images
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...s-f414-for-tejas-mkii-fighter.html

Quote:
"General Electric has defeated the Eurojet consortium in a contest to provide the engine for a new version of India's long-delayed Tejas light combat aircraft.

The US manufacturer has won a deal to supply 99 F414-INS6 turbofans for the Tejas MkII, following a selection decision by India's Aeronautical Development Agency.

[.....]

India had requested bids to provide a more powerful engine for the next version of its Tejas lightweight fighter, and shortlisted proposals on both the new version of the F414 - a type which powers Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Saab's Gripen NG demonstrator - and the Eurofighter Typhoon's Eurojet EJ200."

.....Unless they settle on the Gripen instead, which was reportedly spurned during the technical evaluations, and deemed too close to the Tejas in capability.

"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield

KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7612 times:

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 4):
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 2):
F-18 . . . down the road?

No - from virtually every source coming out of Delhi - Vayu Sena Bhavan is adamant that it will not choose an American plane. Unlike the navy which has very little history with American equipment - The Air Force in the past has had some very bitter disappointments with American export laws......................... C-17s and Hercs fine ............... but not something as important as fighters.

Which American fighter has the IAF flown and why was it "disappointing"?

Shmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 451 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7573 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Which American fighter has the IAF flown and why was it "disappointing"?

None - but every time they've chosen or been close to choosing American equipment some sanctions or the other are imposed

For example in the 70s the IAF chose the viggen for a 200 plus fighter contract that were meant to be equipped with US engines - this was meant to be a measure of rapprochement after the Indo-US acrimony following the Bangladesh war.

Jimmy Carter nixed the engines (while authorising the sale of engines to the USSR for the Il-86 project !!!!!!!! go figure) - for no other reason than to satisfy his insufferable more moral than thou attitude.

In the 90's the GE engines were selected for the Tejas but again these were nixed because of the post nuclear testing sanctions imposed in 1998 and set the LCA programme back by 7-10 years

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 8):
.....Unless they settle on the Gripen instead, which was reportedly spurned during the technical evaluations, and deemed too close to the Tejas in capability.

No - Please note there are big differences between the DRDO and the AF and both hate each other more than they hate Pakistan.

This selection was a DRDO prerogative (technically meant to be exercised with AF consent - but in these cases - the cabinet usually overrides the military view for the "scientist's" point of view) ....................... as i said India never learns from history.

in the 80's and 90's the IAF was adamant a French or Russian engine be chosen - the DRDO went American and is still paying the price for that mistake. The DRDO of course is notorious for wasting money on dunces and technological dead ends..... In-spite of India having one of the highest R&D expenditures in proportion to its overall budget - it has nothing whatsoever to show for it.

The DRDO is notorious for its misplaced Americophilia.
The AF is famous for its justified Americophobia.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 8):
With GE's F414 engine selected for the Tejas, would Super Bugs be too far behind?.....

By that logic The MiG-35 should be ahead because its RD engine is now going to be license produced in India and variants are already in service on the 64 Af and 24 naval Mig-29's.

Vi veri universum vivus vici

DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7546 times:

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 10):
By that logic The MiG-35 should be ahead because its RD engine is now going to be license produced in India and variants are already in service on the 64 Af and 24 naval Mig-29's.

Only if the airframe and powerplant were superior to the competition. One wonders then why the RD33 was not selected for the Tejas (apart from that "notorious" bit about the DRDO). A case of "familiarity breeding contempt"? Certainly, better performance is expected of its engines than what these Klimov "performers" deliver.....

.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwQpd6_SUSg

But we digress - this thread is about the tanker.

"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield

KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5286 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7534 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 11):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwQpd6_SUSg

Could only be from Russia, they love having hottie marketing girls on their stands.

KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7502 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 12):
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 11):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwQpd6_SUSg

Could only be from Russia, they love having hottie marketing girls on their stands.

I didn't see anything about the RD33.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 11):
But we digress - this thread is about the tanker.

Correct, as I see it, the IAF Tanker compitition is wide open right now.

zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4728 times:

It would appear that Boeing has withdrawn the KC-767 from the IAF tanker competition yet again. If i recall last time they did the same.

Fair use excerpt

"NEW DELHI: Boeing has withdrawn from the midair tanker tender floated by the Indian Air Force (IAF) in September 2010.

That leaves only the European Airbus A330 MRTT and the Russian IL 78 in the fray for supplying six midair refuelers to the IAF, which may actually buy a few more aircraft on follow-on orders later. "

from http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ker-tender/articleshow/7324708.cms

Does not give them much choice then for a boom equipped aircraft.

We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar

arniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4715 times:

Not that I know anything about the Tanker world but wouldn't the Indians also consider ordering from the Israeli's?
As far as I know they seem to be on good terms when it comes to their respective defense industries (IIRC their MiG21 Bisons where upgraded with Israeli avionics and jamming equipment) and the Israeli certainly have a viable B767 tanker conversion program which could also be useful for the Indians, no?

[edit post]

Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20851 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4697 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
A-340-500/-600 (used conversions or new build MRTTs from EADS)

Interesting idea... But at least the convenient mount points for the wing drogues would not be available there.

Has Airbus ever floated the dea of an A340 tanker themselves?

Shmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 451 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4683 times:

Quoting arniepie (Reply 15):
Israeli certainly have a viable B767 tanker conversion program which could also be useful for the Indians, no?

Buy second hand?????? surely you jest!!!!! sacrilege!!!!! - the IAF has an incurable Shiny Jet Syndrome (SJS). Conversion options were always available both with the IAI 767 but more importantly with a large fleet of ex air-India A310 for Airbus conversion to MRTT a la the Luftwaffe.

In any case i doubt very much that Boeing will allow IAI to carry out such modifications after having withdrawn itself from the said competition.

I see the A-330 winning this competition - AGAIN - and I'm very curious to see how it will overcome all the objection and vetoes the finance ministry exercised the first time around.

Vi veri universum vivus vici

rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2065 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4658 times:

Why did Boeing no bid? Avoiding another lost campaign that requires uncomfortable explanations at home why their brilliant tanker consistently is considered as 2nd rank by the nobodies. Not endangering the lucrative KC-X could have triggered Boeings move here.

Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20851 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4652 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 18):
Not endangering the lucrative KC-X could have triggered Boeings move here.

It could also be that internally Boeing might want to just terminate the 767-based program if they should happen to lose the KC-X bid since it would not be very economical in that case.

rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2065 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4644 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
It could also be that internally Boeing might want to just terminate the 767-based program if they should happen to lose the KC-X bid since it would not be very economical in that case.

Could also be. I somehow feel that Boeings desicion has to do something with the KC-X. Put all on the card KC-X or something like that. If Boeing wins the KC-X they rightfully no longer need to be worried about who takes care for the nobodies...
Even if all the nobodies end up with a better tanker than the USAF....

bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4617 times:

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 17):
i doubt very much that Boeing will allow IAI to carry out such modifications

Since Boeing is trying to establish good relationship with the India, I wholly believe that Boeing will allow IAI to carry out such modification. Even if it means a nominal fee for allowing access to drawings required for the mod.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 20):

Could also be. I somehow feel that Boeings desicion has to do something with the KC-X.

Yes, perhaps they already believe the pundits that the KC-X is going to Airbus.

Or perhaps with all the pending contracts with India, Boeing feel that they may not be able to work out a sufficient "work of set" package to meet the term of this contract (they may have to do the mod in India instead of Wichita).

bikerthai

Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.

Shmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 451 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4491 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 21):
Since Boeing is trying to establish good relationship with the India, I wholly believe that Boeing will allow IAI to carry out such modification.

and at the same time forcing Israel to ban AESA sales to India so as to not ruin the prospects of the F-18? I think not.

Anyway this point is moot since whatever window of opportunity existed for IAI to submit its bid has now passed. The fact that IAI did not submit a bid at all - especially given the price sensitivity the first time around speaks volumes.

Vi veri universum vivus vici

bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4206 times:

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 22):
same time forcing Israel to ban AESA sales to India so as to not ruin the prospects of the F-18?

When you have dog in the game, it is understandable for you to react differently.

bikerthai

Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.

txjim From United States of America, joined May 2008, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3689 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 21):
Even if it means a nominal fee for allowing access to drawings required for the mod

"Nominal fee" and "Boeing" in the same paragraph?

[Edited 2011-02-08 08:58:28]