the upgrade market is the best option from cost-effectiveness POV. countries which cannot buy 'brand-new' look to this reliable option what-ever it may be. 5 upgraded C-130s from Australia cost the PAF USD 15m each. not a bad deal at all. similarly the IL-78MRTT are also upgraded ex-Ukranian a/c.
Inter-operablity -- today some of those we call allies, such the gulf countries operate US transports, are tied to the US for the support to their "thrones" - these are a net loss for us. Iran, CA, Asia, Africa and some countries in SA may want to be a part of such a "consortium" - countries that want out of US domination and want to be able to follow an independent policy, an independent foreign policy.
No---not in the sense that you are stating----pakistan is not manufacturing the boeing parts in the way you are representing.
Boeing has given pakistan the templates---the machines are similiar or the same that boeing was using in the U S---computer programs are boeings----only the operators are pakistanis who have been trained.
The machines are computer controlled---station gets the order----feeds the specs into the computer---the material is supplied by boeing or its vendor---only thing we are offering is less expensive labour.
I wonder if PAF will purchase more C-130's in the future?
On the risk of sounding biased, it is a tremendous achievement. If anyone has any industrial experience, he will understand that its not simply feeding a CAD/CAM file into a CNC (computer numerical controlled) machine to fabricate an an industrial article. It needs a lot of raw material and fabrication expertise to be able to compete with western counter-parts.
To be selected to be OEM (original equipment manufacturing) partner of any industry, much less an aerospace industry, so prestigious and renowned as Boeing, one has to outperform its industrial rivals in following areas of expertise (which IMHO is no child's play).
1. First you have to hit the marks spot on their tensile testing test-beds for prototype articles. (read: quality)
2. Then you have replicate a small batch production and prove that your tolerance levels are better than others. (read: consistency)
3. Then you have to prove that you can produce the set numbers of articles in a given time-frame. (read: production rate)
4. Then you have to present yourself as a stable and trustworthy supplier (e.g: ISO certifications, of which 9001 and 14001 are just the beginning, aerospace certification are much much tougher)
5. Then you have to out-bid everyone else in the world who has been doing the same for the last 100 years, and already has the equipment, training and skilled labor. (read: economic viability)
And if you think that just owning a particular number of CNC machines and getting your crew trained on them is enough, you are extremely mistaken.
Example: (I am going to praise India here so please bare with me)
India is way way ahead of us in technology market. They make and export Cars, components and what not. They have been trying to buy state of the art manufacturing plants and getting their manpower trained to produce products that are currently competing even Mercedes and BMW component manufacturers (OEM partners). But that was not always the case. In past decades, they were only able to produce crappy cars and parts which didn't even fulfill criterion number one (Quality), but after decades and decades of efforts, they are now into mainstream market, and many of their companies are now OEM partners with many of the world industrial giants. How many of Pakistan's industries can compete with quality standards set in the west, i guess less than 10, or something similar.
Now consider this, India has been building aircrafts, engines and avionics for decades, even a long list of Russian aircrafts and its technology blue-prints have been purchased by India, and translated into English for the Indians. But still after decades of manufacturing, Russian aircrafts are not using India parts, even though Indian production lines are far Cheaper than Russian ones. The only reason might be Quality, Consistency, Production rate or all of the above.
Now compare that PAC-Kamra has managed to compete and outpurform US and European companies for parts that will be installed on aircrafts that are to be operated by US and Europeans themselves ...
Don't you think PAC must have done something extra-ordinary to win their trust ??
Yep Antonov-124 transport planes , they are huge and cheap ............
Antonov An-124 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaGeneral characteristics
* Crew: 6
* Capacity: 88 passengers or the hold can take an additional 350 on a palletised seating system
* Payload: 150,000 kg (330,000 lb)
* Length: 68.96 m (226 ft 3 in)
* Wingspan: 73.3 m (240 ft 5 in)
* Height: 20.78 m (68 ft 2 in)
* Wing area: 628 m² (6,760 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 175,000 kg (385,000 lb)
* Loaded weight: 405,000 kg (893,000 lb)
* Useful load: 230,000 kg (508,000 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 405,000 kg (893,000 lb)
* Powerplant: 4× Ivchenko Progress D-18T turbofans, 229.5 kN (51,600 lbf) each
* Maximum speed: 865 km/h (467 kn (537 mph))
* Cruise speed: 800-850 km/h (430 kn (490 mph))
* Range: 5,400 km (2,900 nm, 3,360 mi (5,410 km))
* Service ceiling: 12,000 m (35,000 ft)
* Wing loading: 365 kg/m² (74.7 lb/sq ft)
* Thrust/weight: 0.23
Or we can get il-78 modified as Air refuelers , and can be used as transport planes.which currently Pakistan have as air refuellers.
* Crew: Six
* Capacity: 138,000 kg (304,233 lb) of fuel
* Length: 46.59 m (152 ft 10 in)
* Wingspan: 50.50 m (165 ft 8 in)
* Height: 14.76 m (37 ft 1 in)
* Wing area: 300 m² (3,230 ft²
* Empty weight: 72,000 kg (202,821 lb)
* Useful load: 85,720 kg (188,980 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 210,000 kg (462,962 lb)
* Powerplant: 4× Aviadvigatel D-30 KP turbofan engines, 118 kN (26,500 lbf) each
* Special equipment: 3 x UPAZ-1M 'Sakhalin', (oonifitseerovannyy podvesnoy agregaht zaprahvki - standardised suspended refuelling unit), refuelling pods; Two on pylons under the outer wings, and the third on the port side of the rear fuselage.
* Maximum speed: 850 km/h (460 kn, 530 mph)
* Range: 7,300 km (3,942 nmi, 4,551 mi)
* Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,360 ft)
* Thrust/weight: 0.23
I dont think Russia will be willing to sell Pakistan An-124
True.. the C-130's are the most cost effective options for us..
And to all those advocating the An-124.. exactly how is that plane supposed to fill any role for tactical transport?
The damn thing needs a huge runway to takeoff.. runways like that exist in only 5 or 6 places in Pakistan, unlike the Herc which can land in almost every field and if needed on 9ave in Islamabad.
however we do require mover heavier transport planes for strategic transport.
the C-130 fits good in tactical transport role with ability to take-off and land from short semi perpared runways!
but still we need some real weight lifter, atleast 6-8 of them.
Last edited by Arsalan; 08-10-2010 at 08:32 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)