Opinion How AMCA's 130kN Engine Tech Could Help India to Develop Indigenous Replacement of Aging IL-76 Transport Aircraft

India has the potential to domestically develop a replacement for its aging fleet of Ilyushin IL-76 transport aircraft, leveraging technology derived from the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program, according to a retired Indian Air Force (IAF) navigator.

The navigator, Mr. Vaidya, a veteran of the IL-76, believes that India can create a successor to the IL-76 by utilizing advancements made in engine technology during the AMCA project. Specifically, the development of a new, powerful engine for the AMCA could lead to "spinoff" technologies applicable to a larger transport aircraft.

The IL-76, a heavy-lift transport aircraft crucial to the IAF's operations, is currently powered by four Aviadvigatel D-30 KP turbofan engines. Each of these engines generates approximately 118 kilonewtons (kN) of thrust. However, maintaining these engines has become increasingly difficult due to international sanctions and geopolitical challenges, which have restricted the availability of spare parts.

Mr. Vaidya stated that a new engine developed for the AMCA, projected to produce a similar level of thrust, could be modified for use in a larger transport aircraft. He suggested that a high-bypass turbofan engine, with a thrust capacity of around 130 kN, derived from the AMCA project, could be a suitable power plant for a new indigenous transport. This would provide the necessary thrust while also potentially improving fuel efficiency and the aircraft's ability to carry heavier payloads.

Such an engine could power a transport aircraft capable of carrying 60 to 66 tons of payload. This represents a substantial increase in capacity compared to the current IL-76, and would better meet the evolving needs of the IAF. The current maximum payload capacity of IL-76 is between 42-48 tons, based on various open source database.

While technically feasible, the project's success hinges on several key factors. Significant financial investment in research, development, and manufacturing infrastructure would be required.

Critically, a firm commitment from the IAF to purchase a substantial number of the new aircraft – at least 30 to 40, according to Vaidya – would be essential to make the project economically viable.

Beyond replacing the IL-76, developing an indigenous transport aircraft would offer significant strategic benefits. It would reduce India's reliance on foreign suppliers for critical military hardware, including future platforms like Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) and aerial refueling tankers, which often utilize similar large airframes. This aligns with India's broader push for self-reliance in defence production.

 

[P2S2]

AIF needs to think about long term benefits and place a large order. GOI has to place a large order for commercial aircraft for this new SPV to get off the ground running. Allocate another rising star General to prove himself as part of training.

 

[Leored]

Bhai sale off this ageing planes. Our troops need safe reliable and batter quality aircraft. Don't learn to hold expired solution atleast for our pera troops and ground troops. Instead create new production line for transport aircraft and start export also. If they don't understand keep one gujarati in their management he will explain them properly.

 

[P2S2]

Bhai sale off this ageing planes. Our troops need safe reliable and batter quality aircraft. Don't learn to hold expired solution atleast for our pera troops and ground troops. Instead create new production line for transport aircraft and start export also. If they don't understand keep one gujarati in their management he will explain them properly.

Correct. This needs urgent attention. Safety is not negotiable. The least we can do for our paras is decent safe transport. Go knock some designer heads.

 

[sanket]

One Engine Multiple platform, How crucial is AMCA Engine for Bharat, Next would b Marine derivative of 110 kN

 

[Paul]

Haha, let’s first make the engine and then think about spin-off projects!

 

[Anant]

Pretty optimistic to assume a 66 ton payload. Take the C-17 as an example. The jet has four engines each producing 180 kN of thrust, and this supports a payload of 77 tons. It is fairly unlikely that four 130 kN engines will manage 66 tons. Even 60 is a bit iffy, given that the Air Force will want the STOL-ish capabilities that the C-17 has.

In any case, such an airlifter would be years away, given that even the baseline AMCA engine is atleast 10-12 years away. In fact, an aircraft using a high-bypass turbofan variant would be atleast 20 years away, and the Il-76 certainly cannot last that long.

Here is what can (and perhaps should) be done: Start work on a project like thus, but don't try to foist this as an Il-76 successor. Instead, this jet would be used to eventually replace the oldest C-17s and supplement the Il-76 replacement (more on this in a minute). This aircraft can also act as a platform for the next-generation AWACS that will succeed the Netra Mk 2 and replace the Netra Mk 1s. Moreover, with the IAF looking at second-hand jets for aerial refuelers to supplement and later replace the Il-78, this jet could also be used for those roles.

Now, such a jet isn't entering service until the mid-2040s at the least. We cannot keep the Il-76 going until then, since they are already aging, and even with refurbishment, these will have to be retired by the late 2030s. Now, given the huddle the IAF had towards the end of the C-17 program, we also know there is a shortage of strategic airlifters in the IAF. Therefore, there is a way out here:

The MTA program is intended to replace the An-32 fleet. What we can do is to split this in two pieces: Have some of the An-32s replaced by the smaller C-295s, and have the majority of the An-32 fleet and the entirety of the Il-76 fleet replaced with a larger airlifter (either the C-390 or the A-400M). That would make up for both the airlifter shortage and would give us time to get this new jet developed, and in due course, we can then look at replacing the C-17s with this new jet. Alternatively, if the IAF feels the C-130J is the way to go, then it would be worth it to look into acquiring some second-hand Il-76s or C-17s to bolster numbers, and development of this new jet would then have to be hurried in order to eventually replace the current strategic airlifter fleet, with most of the An-32s being replaced by the C-130J in this scenario.

 

[beencensured]

One Engine Multiple platform, How crucial is AMCA Engine for Bharat, Next would b Marine derivative of 110 kN

We already have Russian engine that is about 130kn AL31f and 55% Bharat. So, not so inconcievable a higher thrust engine flying such types of planes and plenty off the selves engine option thqat do not require developing own engine with airframe. Though we should not waste time and must develop as we need vast population to be removed from agarian economy which uis low pay and with ever increasing population dead end.

 

[beencensured]

Pretty optimistic to assume a 66 ton payload. Take the C-17 as an example. The jet has four engines each producing 180 kN of thrust, and this supports a payload of 77 tons. It is fairly unlikely that four 130 kN engines will manage 66 tons. Even 60 is a bit iffy, given that the Air Force will want the STOL-ish capabilities that the C-17 has.

In any case, such an airlifter would be years away, given that even the baseline AMCA engine is atleast 10-12 years away. In fact, an aircraft using a high-bypass turbofan variant would be atleast 20 years away, and the Il-76 certainly cannot last that long.

Here is what can (and perhaps should) be done: Start work on a project like thus, but don't try to foist this as an Il-76 successor. Instead, this jet would be used to eventually replace the oldest C-17s and supplement the Il-76 replacement (more on this in a minute). This aircraft can also act as a platform for the next-generation AWACS that will succeed the Netra Mk 2 and replace the Netra Mk 1s. Moreover, with the IAF looking at second-hand jets for aerial refuelers to supplement and later replace the Il-78, this jet could also be used for those roles.

Now, such a jet isn't entering service until the mid-2040s at the least. We cannot keep the Il-76 going until then, since they are already aging, and even with refurbishment, these will have to be retired by the late 2030s. Now, given the huddle the IAF had towards the end of the C-17 program, we also know there is a shortage of strategic airlifters in the IAF. Therefore, there is a way out here:

The MTA program is intended to replace the An-32 fleet. What we can do is to split this in two pieces: Have some of the An-32s replaced by the smaller C-295s, and have the majority of the An-32 fleet and the entirety of the Il-76 fleet replaced with a larger airlifter (either the C-390 or the A-400M). That would make up for both the airlifter shortage and would give us time to get this new jet developed, and in due course, we can then look at replacing the C-17s with this new jet. Alternatively, if the IAF feels the C-130J is the way to go, then it would be worth it to look into acquiring some second-hand Il-76s or C-17s to bolster numbers, and development of this new jet would then have to be hurried in order to eventually replace the current strategic airlifter fleet, with most of the An-32s being replaced by the C-130J in this scenario.

You thoughts misses many points in modern aircraft design. While older aircraft designs are much heavier like IL-76, and C-17, the newer design would weight significantly less in empty weight which may allow a lower thrust engine. Tejas example is one highest use of composites in the world and so it is concievable his points, but depend on design. . As for replacement of IL-76 they use four 116kn engines and design is very old and so very possible. Beside aircraft design is not require to be able to design engines as off self engines are used by most..

 

[bitbpl]

Why not use Kaveri and plan a small Aircraft like C295 before going in for Bigger planes ..

 

[Venugopal Kesavan]

AMCA doesn't have an engine of its own, as yet, so where is the question of an 'AMCA driven engine'?

 

[AK S]

We don't have rights to convert AL31 into a high bypass turbo fan engine. If we decide to reverse engineer, then it's a different story. Even that would require deeper know-why and significant investment. Modifying our own engine would be a much better option.

 

[Vivek Singh]

You thoughts misses many points in modern aircraft design. While older aircraft designs are much heavier like IL-76, and C-17, the newer design would weight significantly less in empty weight which may allow a lower thrust engine. Tejas example is one highest use of composites in the world and so it is concievable his points, but depend on design. . As for replacement of IL-76 they use four 116kn engines and design is very old and so very possible. Beside aircraft design is not require to be able to design engines as off self engines are used by most..

The problem with building large aircraft with composite materials is the extremely expensive tooling. We need to build very large “autoclaves”, which is basically an ovens for baking composite parts, to build parts.

These will be prohibitively expensive for a large aircraft being built in few numbers.

 

[vinod nair]

If we plan to reduce internal strife and reduce expense on policing better explore every job enriching opertunity. MNERGA scheme is not just in india even NASA is. We have to own our people and tailor our employeement scheme as per there knowledge or lack of it. Import how so ever cheaper is a sink hole in national economic fabric. Slowly but surely all western world will shun globalization and advocate for local product partilally due to shrinking population and reduced technological edge to other part of world.

 

[abhinav srivastava]

It would be a good project to pursue. Also, some more use cases like air to air refueller can be considered.

 

[Joseph Thomas]

In 1947, India and Japan were the only Asian countries with an aircraft manufacturing industry. Since then, we have fallen behind. It is time to catch up.

 

[Sandeep]

To carry this out the engine will need to have major modifications carried out to a jet engine. They will also need to develop a larger and more powerful engine to fly any transporter of that size.

 

[ASHOK CARROL]

For the project to be financially viable, the armed forces' requirements have to be over 250-300, provided Airborne divisions are raised, and the CAPF, BSF, ITBP, SSB, ASSAM RIFLES, NSG, CRPF, and CISF are also provided for and catered to for air mobility. This would be done by integrating them into theater commands, equipping and training them for holding operations, and converting the existing army's holding corps into 6-8 more offensive corps and expeditionary corps, without an increase in additional manpower, and yet capable of fielding an army of over 2 million personnel, of both Army and CAPF forces, boosted with Agniveers, operating under theater commanders and combined operations rooms where cadre officers and IPS officers sit and coordinate joint operations with the army and air force.

 

[SURESH RAO]

The design concepts of turbofan and turbojet engines are different. We cannot use a turbojet engine as a starting point to design a turbofan engine. Anyway, it will take many years to design and prototype a turbofan engine. After that, testing will take more years. Modern software and hardware tools may speed up the process a bit.

 

[Anant]

You thoughts misses many points in modern aircraft design. While older aircraft designs are much heavier like IL-76, and C-17, the newer design would weight significantly less in empty weight which may allow a lower thrust engine. Tejas example is one highest use of composites in the world and so it is concievable his points, but depend on design. . As for replacement of IL-76 they use four 116kn engines and design is very old and so very possible. Beside aircraft design is not require to be able to design engines as off self engines are used by most..

Sir, you make some good points. However, increasing the use of composites may not be a very acceptable scenario since that would push costs up a lot. Therefore, drawing an equivalence with the extent of composites usage as on a jet might not be correct.

As for the engine, well, we could use off-the-shelf engines, and that would help.

 

[Dredd]

Sir, you make some good points. However, increasing the use of composites may not be a very acceptable scenario since that would push costs up a lot. Therefore, drawing an equivalence with the extent of composites usage as on a jet might not be correct.

As for the engine, well, we could use off-the-shelf engines, and that would help.

IMO the joint development is a best way to offset risks and lower costs, Get Europe or Brazil and create a joint consortium with minimum committed order book to reduce costs of development and benefit of scale. After C17 world don't have any options available.

 

[BSG]

Why talk about the engine when you have not even thought about the aircraft? The financial prudence of designing and developing an aircraft for which the maximum requirement would be 30-40, needs to be seriously examined. And what would be the timeline for developing a brand new aircraft or a high bypass engine also has to be considered. That a fighter jet engine experience be so easily spun off into a high bypass engine for a transport aircraft, seems to be a very simplistic argument. Experts on the subject may be having a hearty laugh. I don't know.

 

[Moonstone]

Gentlemen, please let me know how difficult or easy is it for India to design, develop and manufacture its own engine for AMCA.
Countries like Turkiye, South Korea & China are well ahead of us in the manufacture of fighter aircraft engines while we are dependant on other countries.