An-124 Strategic Transport: News

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Well the Slon is very promising, but it is at least 7 or 8 years away from serial production.  And also the new il-106 still requires some time.

The An-124, could be put in production even next year, if the engines from Zaporozhye were available...

As far as I know, there is no real hurry to restart production of the An-124, the resource of the existing units is far from being exhausted, and the Il-76 allows to a certain extent to cope with the transport tasks of the VKS, at least while no bigger deployment needs arise. But of course, in some years time the need can appear and VTA is currently far from being fit for such challenge, with an ageing fleet, delayed and slow Il-76 production and Il-112V project in question altogether. They re supposed to being developing the PAK VTA actively now, but as you say it can be 10 years until the project starts delivering airframes.

About reviving the production of the An-124, this is a fairly old article, but has good background info for the ones not following the topic closely:

https://iz.ru/752653/ilia-kramnik/nevozvrashchaemyi-ruslan

The An-124, could be put in production even next year, if the engines from Zaporozhye were available...

An-2 and An-12 aircraft could be put back into production too... but why go backwards?

About reviving the production of the An-124, this is a fairly old article, but has good background info for the ones not following the topic closely:

It mentions commercial viability, which is not really very relevant to the Russian military, and more important this war means Russia needs international access that doesn't operate through or in cooperation with the west, which means long range transport planes that don't need to land on the way, as well as long range airliners that also don't make stopoffs will also be rather important... and the ability to move things rapidly around the world will be more critical than ever before...

The availability of engines is what is holding up the development of new planes and also the production of An-124s, but I suspect it makes more sense to just reengine existing An-124s than to build new models, while new aircraft types like Il-106 and Slon will be built eventually anyway... new build An-124s are not a long term solution... the facilities that want to make An-124s would be better used to start making Il-106s and Slons for testing and fault finding full scale prototypes.

GarryB wrote:It mentions commercial viability, which is not really very relevant to the Russian military

Sure they don't care about that, and having Ernst&Young giving their opinion on that is outright BS. But still it is clear that such projects demand a big investment (production line plus substitution of many systems in the aircraft) and producing An-124 may not be a long lived initiative, specially because it could not be used to serve the international market.

but I suspect it makes more sense to just reengine existing An-124s than to build new models, while new aircraft types like Il-106 and Slon will be built eventually anyway... new build An-124s are not a long term solution... the facilities that want to make An-124s would be better used to start making Il-106s and Slons for testing and fault finding full scale prototypes.

I read VKS has 11 An-124, which is of course not much. If they start with the Slon, PAK-VTA and new Il-76 the need to bridge a gap with the An-124 may not justify a lot of new airframes. But that was the situation pre-war, if Russia gets ready access to the engines the assessment of pros/cons could change substantially.

GarryB wrote:

The An-124, could be put in production even next year, if the engines from Zaporozhye were available...

An-2 and An-12 aircraft could be put back into production too... but why go backwards?

About reviving the production of the An-124, this is a fairly old article, but has good background info for the ones not following the topic closely:

It mentions commercial viability, which is not really very relevant to the Russian military, and more important this war means Russia needs international access that doesn't operate through or in cooperation with the west, which means long range transport planes that don't need to land on the way, as well as long range airliners that also don't make stopoffs will also be rather important... and the ability to move things rapidly around the world will be more critical than ever before...

The availability of engines is what is holding up the development of new planes and also the production of An-124s, but I suspect it makes more sense to just reengine existing An-124s than to build new models, while new aircraft types like Il-106 and Slon will be built eventually anyway... new build An-124s are not a long term solution... the facilities that want to make An-124s would be better used to start making Il-106s and Slons for testing and fault finding full scale prototypes.

The An-124 is not an old plane. It started operation in 1986, practically almost the same as the airbus A320 airliner.

You are right about eventually the il106 and the slon will be produced. The problem is that this eventually means at least 5 to 8 years.

Furthermore, concerning the current situation of Russia with the west, a Ilyushin aircraft will face the same restriction as a Russian produced An-124.

The problem with that aircraft was that the recognised certifying authority was the Kiev based Antonov firm, even if the aircraft was a soviet one, and not a ukrainian one, and that Aviastar in Ulyanovsk plant had the same knowledge as the plant in Kiev.

Soon Zaporozhye Alexandrovsk will not be anymore in Ukrainian control. If the factories are all destroyed then the issue of the production of the old D18T engine (a decent stopgap while they wait for the new russian generation engines) can be easily solved.

Furthermore the inheritance and intellectual property of Antonov and motor sich (together with zorya and with most Soviet firms based in Ukraine) can be transferred back to Russia once they sign the capitulation of Kiev.

Eventually the west will not have choice but to recognise it (as they will also have to recognise Crimea as russian and the Donbass as either russian or part of the new novorossian state).

And if the west will not recognise Antonov aircrafts build and operated in Russia, Russia can in 5 years forbid operation of Boeing and Airbus airplanes over its airspace (and possibly even over the whole CIS airspace).

Second, they have made really serious modifications to it, several of them. In both Ukraine and Russia. The latest one includes new wings and an electric engine.

Over the years there were several planes that were supposed to finally replace the old An-2 but none of them actually displaced the aircraft because they weren't as easy to repair or they were too expensive or they didn't offer the same short field operational capacity.

Various suggestions from just replacing the old engine with a new model An-3 through to all sorts of actual new designs all failed for one reason or another... the most recent model was an An-2 made of composites and with much better performance but was too expensive to realistically do the job and likely would not be as simple and easy to keep running.

Until they get batteries that can cope with the cold electric is not going to work either.

The new LMS-901 and the other bigger plane look viable, but An-2s are going to remain in use in backwaters till they crash or can't get parts any more.

The Military however needs replacement aircraft and the two put forward.. LMS-901 and heavier twin engined type, are probably mostly held back by lack of suitable domestic engine in that power range.

The VK-800 should fill that gap.

and producing An-124 may not be a long lived initiative, specially because it could not be used to serve the international market.

The smaller lighter An-22 was a very useful aircraft with a useful payload capacity and good flight range... I would think an 80-100 ton payload aircraft would also be very useful too while being cheaper to operate than the much bigger Antonov.

I would think getting the factories wanting to make An-124s adapted to making Il-106s would make rather more sense.

If they start with the Slon, PAK-VTA and new Il-76 the need to bridge a gap with the An-124 may not justify a lot of new airframes.

If the PAK VTA is the Il-106 then I would think production of the Slon and the Il-106 would actually make the An-124 a bit redundant with no new airframes being required.... the Il-106 would be cheaper for lighter loads and shorter distances, while the Slon would allow the same payloads over greater distances or heavier loads over similar distances.

The engines used are not particularly fuel efficient nor amazingly reliable.

You are right about eventually the il106 and the slon will be produced. The problem is that this eventually means at least 5 to 8 years.

What is holding them back is their engine... the PD-35, but that same engine would be used on an upgrade for the An-124 while a new PD-24/25 optimised to replace the older engines likely would not be used on anything else and while they would improve reliability and fuel efficiency there are no plans to use them on anything else which makes them a bit wasteful...

PD-35s on the other had will be used on SLON and Il-106 (4 and 2 engines respectively) as well as on the Il-96 upgrade (2 engines), which makes a lot more sense moving forward.

Furthermore, concerning the current situation of Russia with the west, a Ilyushin aircraft will face the same restriction as a Russian produced An-124.

The Il-106 and Slon will be Russian designs with Russian parts and engines... they are the solution to problems getting western parts.

Soon Zaporozhye Alexandrovsk will not be anymore in Ukrainian control. If the factories are all destroyed then the issue of the production of the old D18T engine (a decent stopgap while they wait for the new russian generation engines) can be easily solved.

A big part of the new aircraft is no longer needing the Ukrainian engine.

Furthermore the inheritance and intellectual property of Antonov and motor sich (together with zorya and with most Soviet firms based in Ukraine) can be transferred back to Russia once they sign the capitulation of Kiev.

But why... the aircraft and the engine are dead ends and the engine needs replacement more than the aircraft does.

Eventually the west will not have choice but to recognise it (as they will also have to recognise Crimea as russian and the Donbass as either russian or part of the new novorossian state).

There is nothing Russia could possibly do to compel the west to recognise anything at all.

And if the west will not recognise Antonov aircrafts build and operated in Russia, Russia can in 5 years forbid operation of Boeing and Airbus airplanes over its airspace (and possibly even over the whole CIS airspace).

And if they respond in kind then airlines from the rest of the world are going to get pissed at needing to buy both western planes to operate western routes and Russian planes to fly over Russia... and the bans will mean flying to the EU or from the EU to Asia can't be done over Russian airspace because if you use western planes you can't fly over Russia and if you use Russian planes you can't land in the EU.

And for what... so Russia can keep using some Ukrainian planes?

The existing types will be fine for the next 5-6 years and then Russian planes can start to replace them forever.

LMFS wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Well the Slon is very promising, but it is at least 7 or 8 years away from serial production.  And also the new il-106 still requires some time.

The An-124, could be put in production even next year, if the engines from Zaporozhye were available...

As far as I know, there is no real hurry to restart production of the An-124, the resource of the existing units is far from being exhausted, and the Il-76 allows to a certain extent to cope with the transport tasks of the VKS, at least while no bigger deployment needs arise. But of course, in some years time the need can appear and VTA is currently far from being fit for such challenge, with an ageing fleet, delayed and slow Il-76 production and Il-112V project in question altogether. They re supposed to being developing the PAK VTA actively now, but as you say it can be 10 years until the project starts delivering airframes.

About reviving the production of the An-124, this is a fairly old article, but has good background info for the ones not following the topic closely:

https://iz.ru/752653/ilia-kramnik/nevozvrashchaemyi-ruslan

The production of An-124 could perfectly resumed, just as that of the Il-76 has been resumed
After all, the plane is good and ideal for the needs of Russia, which are the same as those of the USSR

The only problem is the Nazi regime in the Ukraine, when it is defeated, it will return Antonov's patent to Russia, the rightful owner, since Antonov was a Muscovite. In addition, the 6 AN-124 that Ukraine still has must be returned as war reparations

The Russian aeronautical industry is not in a position to develop new airplanes in this moment, we will see how long it takes to put the simple Il-112V into production, for now it must look for a substitute for the An-12, which is totally exhausted as a resource

The An-124 will be in service until at least 2040 or even 2050, at the moment they have 13 in the ranks, plus 9 in reserve and several engines stored from other decommissioned aircraft

in total the need for An-124 for the VKS will not exceed two squadrons, 16 to 20 aurcraft, plus a dozen operating Volga-Dniepr

Such a small number of devices does not justify the investment in a new development, Russia can continue to manufacture the An-124 and work for decades, like the Boeing 747 that is from the end of the 60s of the 20th century.

The Il-112 is not an example for anything. The MC-21 and SSJ have been designed just fine. The Su-57, a much more complicated aircraft, was also designed just fine.
If a country like Brazil can design the KC-390 what makes you think Russia cannot develop a similar aircraft?

lancelot wrote:The Il-112 is not an example for anything. The MC-21 and SSJ have been designed just fine. The Su-57, a much more complicated aircraft, was also designed just fine.
If a country like Brazil can design the KC-390 what makes you think Russia cannot develop a similar aircraft?

Off topic- the il-112v suffered because of start and interruption of the  design and development many times, lack of proper investment and loss of competent personnel (some of them left the Ilyushin design bureau to work for Irkut/Yak, and several others for the boeing centre in Moscow).

In the past (until 2013) there was also a strong pro ukrainian lobby in the russian military, that sabotised the il112 to order An-140.
I am also curious if it can receive some competition also from a  cargo version of the TVRS-44 Ladoga.

Again, I fully agree with the restart of An124 production, even if I believe that for the foreseeable future there will be less hope for civilian orders as Volga Dnepr will not have anymore western customers

The sooner they get rid of their Antonovs the better, across the board, they are dead end designs.

Even if Moscow got the name Antonov back, the time and money and energy that would be needed to get it up and running as a working company could be time and money and energy put into Ilyusion and Tupolev to develop and produce Russian alternatives in Russia using Russian materials.

Rather than building more An-124s they should build Il-106 aircraft... to start with using four PS-90 engines (the 18 ton thrust versions) which would give them an aircraft in the An-22 niche which was popular and widely useful and also cheaper to operate and use than the An-124.

The market for bigger aircraft get smaller as the aircraft gets bigger... if they had 200 An-124s I would say 200 Il106s plus 60-80 Slons would be what they are looking at... including some H tailed Il-106s and H tailed Slons for the external payload role.

GarryB wrote:The sooner they get rid of their Antonovs the better, across the board, they are dead end designs.

Even if Moscow got the name Antonov back, the time and money and energy that would be needed to get it up and running as a working company could be time and money and energy put into Ilyusion and Tupolev to develop and produce Russian alternatives in Russia using Russian materials.

Rather than building more An-124s they should build Il-106 aircraft... to start with using four PS-90 engines (the 18 ton thrust versions) which would give them an aircraft in the An-22 niche which was popular and widely useful and also cheaper to operate and use than the An-124.

The market for bigger aircraft get smaller as the aircraft gets bigger... if they had 200 An-124s I would say 200 Il106s plus 60-80 Slons would be what they are looking at... including some H tailed Il-106s and H tailed Slons for the external payload role.

Russia is not the USSR and it does not have the industrial capacity or the human resources to make aircraft of all segments, not even in the civil sector, much less in the military. And less in a capitalist system limited by money.

The Ulyanovsk plant is unable to reach production of 12 Il-76MD-90As simply because of a lack of qualified personnel, in addition to the difficulties it faced in the past due to sanctions. They also aren't able to repair and fly enough An-124s that Shoigu requires, so forget that they're going to make any more new full-size aircraft from scratch before 2040 at the earliest, and that's thinking Russia win the war, recover and continue to develop normally

Yes, Russia will take back Ukraine and Russia will take back the Antonov brand (this is the design office and the patents).

The factories and personnel are already in Russia, Ulyanovsk manufactured and repaired the An-124, Voronezh manufactured the An-148 and Samara the An-140.
Ukraine has not manufactured anything except for a couple of An-148s for North Korea and half a dozen An-158s for Cuba, which are not even in service anymore.

Russia's intention is not to spend more resources than necessary, that is why it has put the money into strategic deterrence, missiles, submarines, etc...

but as you can see, Soviet projects such as the Tu-160, the Il-76 or nuclear submarines that were already starting the project in the 90s, or Varshavyanka submarines that are improved Kilos have continued

How many Galaxy does the USAF operate, two squadrons, that is 36.
Is the USA going to build a replacement for the Galaxy?
ANd this is USA, that needs to cross oceans

Russia does not need and cannot make substitutes for the An-124, much less make two new heavy aircraft. Il-106 and SLon are olny pictures in a paper as many other designs like fantastic nuclear carriers and others

If a project of this big size is made it will be because there is a need in the civil market and then a military/double purpose version is made, but in Russia today there is not.
And if it were done, it would be in collaboration with China or India, with a potential market that justifies the project.

So the best option is to return the An-124 production in ULyanovsk and improve it, engines, materials, etc...

In addition, the priority for Russia is to replace the An-12, which is running out and there are no expectations of a new design substitute.
It is quite suspicious that the Il-276 was canceled precisely last year, probably thinking that after the war they will be able to manufacture Antonovs such as An-178 or An-70

AMCXXL wrote:
So the best option is to return the An-124 production in ULyanovsk and improve it, engines, materials, etc...

In addition, the priority for Russia is to replace the An-12, which is running out and there are no expectations of a new design substitute.
It is quite suspicious that the Il-276 was canceled precisely last year, probably thinking that after the war they will be able to manufacture Antonovs such as An-178 or An-70

I agree on the An-124, less about the An-12 replacement.

Both An178 and an 70 are not of the desired size (An178 is too small and while I like the An70, it is way too big to be a replacement for the An-12.

But yes, it make no sense for Russia to concentrate on a An124 replacement now, especially when they absolutely need a modern 20 to 30 tons payload cargo plane.
An124 just needs a modernisation, new internal systems and new engines (while it can be probably produced in the current version for a few years, provided that Zaporozhye is still able to produce the engines).

An-178 and An-70 are bugged like hell. There is a reason they did not enter service. They are basically flying prototypes.
Neither aircraft uses a modern engine that is in production or will be in production.

The Il-276 is supposed to use the PD-14M engine which will be common with the MC-21-400. If they want to rush the design before that engine is ready they can just initially use the PS-90 which has the same thrust level.

An-124 production has been stale for so long most likely a lot of the suppliers are gone. As for the engines, if the PD-35 engine does enter production for the CR929, then they can just can use that on the Slon. Which I doubt will be substantially more expensive than basically redoing the An-124 from scratch. As for partners China used to have a partnership with Ukraine to develop a heavy lift An-225 replacement. Now that Ukraine cannot cooperate with their aviation industry they can probably be convinced to partially fund the project. Russia and China already collaborate on the heavy helicopter program.

lancelot wrote:An-178 and An-70 are bugged like hell. There is a reason they did not enter service. They are basically flying prototypes.
Neither aircraft uses a modern engine that is in production or will be in production.

The Il-276 is supposed to use the PD-14M engine which will be common with the MC-21-400. If they want to rush the design before that engine is ready they can just initially use the PS-90 which has the same thrust level.

An-124 production has been stale for so long most likely a lot of the suppliers are gone. As for the engines, if the PD-35 engine does enter production for the CR929, then they can just can use that on the Slon. Which I doubt will be substantially more expensive than basically redoing the An-124 from scratch. As for partners China used to have a partnership with Ukraine to develop a heavy lift An-225 replacement. Now that Ukraine cannot cooperate with their aviation industry they can probably be convinced to partially fund the project. Russia and China already collaborate on the heavy helicopter program.

An 178 for sure is quite bugged and only a prototype...
The, an 70 was a very interesting concept but unfortunately damaged by all the political games.
Furthermore it was a soviet project, not Ukrainian and a large amount of components was of russian production. Unfortunately soviet union fell before its development was complete. Still I do not understand how they called it a replacement for the An12. Each of the four engines is way more powerful than the engines of the An12 (almost 14000hp of the D27 vs 4000hp of the Ai20).
As far as the engine, probably it could eventually be replaced by a turboprop or propfan derivative of the PD-14 (in case the restart of production of the D27 is absolutely impossible).

Anyway Russia needs a new cargo aircraft in the 20-30 tons payload range (and possibly one on the 10-12 tons payload range) much more than a An-124 replacement.
At the moment the il 276 is much more a paper aircrafts (and with unconvincing specs, like much worse payload and range than the Embraer C--390, which has engines with similar thrust levels) than the An70.

For the An124 the airframe was never a problem. It has massive upgrade potential, expecially with new engines and new avionics. 

Russia was "forced" to develop a new generation of internal systems for its civilian passengers. I am sure this investment can also benefit the cargo planes.

Russia is not the USSR and it does not have the industrial capacity or the human resources to make aircraft of all segments, not even in the civil sector, much less in the military. And less in a capitalist system limited by money.

An-124s made money... Il-76s made money too... dare I say it new replacement aircraft for the An-12 and An-22 and other types will also make money as well as fill the needs of the Russian military and also militaries around the world.

They also aren't able to repair and fly enough An-124s that Shoigu requires, so forget that they're going to make any more new full-size aircraft from scratch before 2040 at the earliest, and that's thinking Russia win the war, recover and continue to develop normally

They are building more airliners over the next decade than they have in the last three decades, it always happens that when there is a change there is a shortage of trained experts... in two or three years more people will be trained up to meet the needs and everything will be fine.

They are going to need ship makers too because the number of civilian cargo ships and tankers and gas carriers they will need is enormous, and Navy ships to support their operations around the world, they are going to be very busy, but they have low debt and lots of resources... I suspect some professional people from Europe might want to move to Russia because Europe wont be making many aircraft or ships because you need light and electricity and heat to live well...

Yes, Russia will take back Ukraine and Russia will take back the Antonov brand (this is the design office and the patents).

I don't think it will. (take back the Antonov brand).

Polikarpov is a dead company and Lavochkin is no longer involved in fighter aircraft, it is time for Tupolev and Ilyusion to step up and Myasishchev to get back into the game so to speak.

The factories and personnel are already in Russia, Ulyanovsk manufactured and repaired the An-124, Voronezh manufactured the An-148 and Samara the An-140.

Makes no sense to build obsolete foreign designs when they have design bureaus that can design new designs that take advantage of new technology and materials and experience of operating these types for a few decades.

The Russian military has different loads and different needs...

Russia's intention is not to spend more resources than necessary, that is why it has put the money into strategic deterrence, missiles, submarines, etc...

The rest of the world needs replacements for these Soviet types just like Russia does and it would boost trade and relations if they had products they could sell to replace that equipment too.

How many Galaxy does the USAF operate, two squadrons, that is 36.
Is the USA going to build a replacement for the Galaxy?
ANd this is USA, that needs to cross oceans

HATO was heavily dependent on An-124s leased from various companies... if the Galaxy was a better aircraft they would use it more.

Politics and corruption led to them buying way too many C-17s which is the core of their inventory for no other reason than jobs and votes for congressmen on budget allocation committees.

Russia does not need and cannot make substitutes for the An-124, much less make two new heavy aircraft. Il-106 and SLon are olny pictures in a paper as many other designs like fantastic nuclear carriers and others

They don't need to make both right away, and it would make sense to make the Il-106 first with two PD-35 engines as it would be cheaper than An-124s with about 80-85% of its normal payload capacity over useful ranges... it would be useful like the An-22 was.

Which raises the obvious question... why not a replacement for the An-22 that uses the same turboprop engines they are updating for the Bear...

An Il-106 with four turboprop engines from the Tu-95 would be interesting... perhaps with two sets of contra-rotating blades more like the propfan for the An-70... 8 blades on the front propeller disk and 6 on the back disk...

If a project of this big size is made it will be because there is a need in the civil market and then a military/double purpose version is made, but in Russia today there is not.
And if it were done, it would be in collaboration with China or India, with a potential market that justifies the project.

The idea is to minimise the risk by using scalability with the engines... so the twin and four engined Il-276 and Il-476, with basically the same planes with shorter wings and shorter fuselage in the twin engined version... and the same with the twin engined Il-106 and the four engined Slon... or the Slon designed could be shortened and made with smaller wings and only two engines in a mini Slon design to minimise cost and risks... I mean look at airliners that are stretched to carry more passengers cheaply without having to design a new aircraft... it is normal.

So the best option is to return the An-124 production in ULyanovsk and improve it, engines, materials, etc...

I disagree, there are no other aircraft that could use 24-25 ton thrust engines so it does not make sense to make PD-25s just to keep some old planes flying.

In addition, the priority for Russia is to replace the An-12, which is running out and there are no expectations of a new design substitute.
It is quite suspicious that the Il-276 was canceled precisely last year, probably thinking that after the war they will be able to manufacture Antonovs such as An-178 or An-70

Antonov is dead... let it go.

I rather suspect they anticipated western sanctions and therefore putting civilian airliners into production to crash fill the gaps... before the Il-276 idea was the Tu-330 based on the Tu-204/214 design... if the latter are going back into production then it makes sense to look at the Tu-330 again and the increased cargo capacity of 35 tons is actually a real bonus because their armour is going to get heavier, with Boomerang and Typhoon types in the 30-35 ton weight range.

Still I do not understand how they called it a replacement for the An12. Each of the four engines is way more powerful than the engines of the An12 (almost 14000hp of the D27 vs 4000hp of the Ai20).

You get to sell more if it replaces the An-12 than if it just replaces the Il-76 in use by the VDV who wanted a slower aircraft for dropping troops and equipment....

Anyway Russia needs a new cargo aircraft in the 20-30 tons payload range (and possibly one on the 10-12 tons payload range) much more than a An-124 replacement.

I totally agree here, and would also say the Il-106 as a replacement for the An-22 would be more useful to take pressure off the An-124 in Russian service too...

At the moment the il 276 is much more a paper aircrafts (and with unconvincing specs, like much worse payload and range than the Embraer C--390, which has engines with similar thrust levels) than the An70.

The concept is good though, whereby Il-76 customers might buy the smaller aircraft for smaller jobs because of commonality... a scaled down shorter aircraft with smaller wings and two engines but the same cross section... makes sense if they can make it affordable.

Russia was "forced" to develop a new generation of internal systems for its civilian passengers. I am sure this investment can also benefit the cargo planes.

This will be a good reward for KRET because 5th columnist foreign CEOs of Russian airlines can't substitute western avionics in Russian airliners because that is what the customer wants bullshit.

The il106 is a nice plane, but as you said it is on paper only

It was seriously developed and the engines were impressive till it was killed by the Clintons and also Ukrainian interests...

Anyway as they have problems on il112, they should maximize efficiency to bring up the number of heavy lift transports by reactivation production of an124

That is not how it works... you don't fix problems with your bicycle and moped and motor bike being in the shop by buying an articulated truck...

This would allow il76 fleet to perform with high efficiency , and let an124 supplement heavy carrying missions

What they would really benefit from is a niche aircraft like the An-22 with its four huge turboprops that filled the gap between the Il-76 (40 tons) and the An-124 (120 tons), with an 80 ton payload capacity over decent ranges.

I would like to inform you that the IL-76MD-90A has a maximum load capacity of up to 60 tons.

Yes, but the original Il-76s were 40 ton payload aircraft...

GarryB wrote:Yes, but the original Il-76s were 40 ton payload aircraft...

Il-76M: 42t
Il-76MD: 48t
Il-76TD: 50t (military equipament stripped)
Il-76MD-90A: 62t

An-124-100 120t
An-124-150 150t

this is max with a certain ammount of fuel (probably about 1/2 of fuel as much), in general the real load is 2/3 to 3/4 for a reasonable range

You also can load very few fuel and increases the max payload:

"Thirty world records have been set on the AN-124, including an absolute payload-to-altitude record when a 171.219-ton payload was lifted to the altitude of 10750 meters"

Scorpius wrote:I would like to inform you that the IL-76MD-90A has a maximum load capacity of up to 60 tons.

The problem with the il-76 is not just the payload, but also the width of the things you want to carry.
It's cargo hold has a width of 3.4 metres, that is not only much smaller than the 6.4 metres of the an-124 but also less than the Chinese y20, the Antonov An70 and of the tu-330 (4.4 metres).

There are some objects that even if they are within the payload limit, are too bulky to be transported on the Il-76.

By the way, actually the Y-20 was developed with support from Antonov, and it is mostly a slightly bigger An70 with turbofan engines. It is practically an improved copy of an aircraft which development was paid mostly by Russia.

Possibly Russia should think about this aircraft as well, for two reasons: they invested most of the money for the development of the An70 and they have the engines for it (currently PS90, later PD-14M or PD-16).

Restarting production of the il-76 has been fundamental for Russia, but that aircraft is of an older design and has less modernisation potential than the An-124, Tu-330 and An-70.
However with Antonov in foreign hands and absolutely needs of buildig heavy cargo, the restart of the il 76 production with new engines was the only option.
10 years ago was more need of il-76 class aircrafts than tu330, furthermore il-76 was just a modernisations and carried less complexity and risks than recovering a paper project which development was not complete as the Tu330.

Maybe the il76 can be seen as a stop gap until the new set of aircrafts in the various payload classes are ready to be produced by

Maybe the il76 can be seen as a stop gap until the new set of aircrafts in the various payload classes are ready to be produced by

The situation they are in the Il-476 is the last design they need to consider replacing.

I would say the Il-276 was clever... because it solves a looming problem which can be solved in existing factories with existing tooling... shorter wings and shorter fuselage and two engines instead of four.

If you have 6 factories making Il-476s then make it 12... of the extra 6 factories two can work on making Il-276 prototypes and the other four can boost production of the Il-476s to get them into Russian service faster... and once they are done (including other types like A-100s and Il-576 tanker types and jammer versions etc etc) they can start making some for export, and by then the Il-276 will be in production to replace the An-12 in Russian service but lots of other countries around the world operate that aircraft too and will want a replacement, so export production of Il-476s and Il-276s will keep those factories busy for a while and make good money.

Producing the Tupolevs (204,214) can start out as civilian airliners and cargo planes to start with but the Russian military have lots of old airliners like the Il-20 and Il-22 and Tu-134 and Tu-154M and Il-38 that could all do with replacements over the next few years and also the Tu-330 is another light to medium transport that would be popular... the 35 ton payload might be useful to some but for others they might want a 20 ton payload aircraft with extra range, so 20 ton payload and 15 tons of extra fuel for extra flight range.

Certainly here in New Zealand our C-130s struggle to get to most Pacific Islands with any significant payload and end up using fuel at those islands where fuel is expensive so we have to ship it in for our transports to use.

Having a Tu-330 or even an Il-476 that could deliver payloads and also extra fuel for those islands would be much better all round, but of course we wont buy Russian.

this is max with a certain ammount of fuel (probably about 1/2 of fuel as much), in general the real load is 2/3 to 3/4 for a reasonable range

You can play around with fuel weight but planes have physical max weight limits for MTOW, with a 20 ton load the Il-76M can fly 6,100km from a 2.5km paved runway, the Il-76MD with the same payload and takeoff strip can fly 7,200km because of the heavier MTOW, while the Il76MF can fly 8,500km with a 20 ton payload from a 2.5km runway... the main difference is MTOW, Il-76M = 170 tons, Il-76MD = 190 tons and the Il-76MF = 210 tons.

The point is that the M and the MD can't carry 55 ton payloads even with half fuel, it is not just about trading fuel weight for payload weight, the cranes and floor of the aircraft have weight limits and balance considerations too.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

Scorpius wrote:I would like to inform you that the IL-76MD-90A has a maximum load capacity of up to 60 tons.

The problem with the il-76 is not just the payload, but also the width of the things you want to carry.
It's cargo hold has a width of 3.4 metres, that is not only much smaller than the 6.4 metres of the an-124 but also less than the Chinese y20, the Antonov An70 and of the tu-330 (4.4 metres).

There are some objects that even if they are within the payload limit, are too bulky to be transported on the Il-76.

By the way, actually the Y-20 was developed with support from Antonov, and it is mostly a slightly bigger An70 with turbofan engines. It is practically an improved copy of an aircraft which development was paid mostly by Russia.

Possibly Russia should think about this aircraft as well, for two reasons: they invested most of the money for the development of the An70 and they have the engines for it (currently PS90, later PD-14M or PD-16).

Restarting production of the il-76 has been fundamental for Russia, but that aircraft is of an older design and has less modernisation potential than the An-124, Tu-330 and An-70.
However with Antonov in foreign hands and absolutely needs of buildig heavy cargo, the restart of the il 76 production with new engines was the only option.
10 years ago was more need of il-76 class aircrafts than tu330, furthermore il-76 was just a modernisations and carried less complexity and risks than recovering a paper project which development was not complete as the Tu330.

Maybe the il76 can be seen as a stop gap until the new set of aircrafts in the various payload classes are ready to be produced by

The Y-20 is nothing more than an evolution of the Il-76, it has identical proportions, identical MTOW, etc...
The only thing that was done was to widen the body of the plane, which obtains a somewhat wider cargo hold, 3.9 meters by 3.45 from the Il-76, although it is somewhat shorter in length.
This allows the transport of a medium tank such as the Type 15 (supposedly two T-15 tanks if the load capacity exceeds 60 t. with the new more powerful engine)

However, Russia does not use the Il-76 to move tanks but the material of the lightest of the airborne forces and reserves the An-124 to move larger things such as MBTs, helicopters and even fighter planes, which do not fit in the Il-76

Aesthetically the Y-20 has the biggest difference with the IL-76 in the shape of the nose, which does resemble the post-Soviet Antonovs, but Antonov as such was a mixed Russian-Ukrainian company until 2014 (more Russian than Ukrainian) only being the headquarters in Kiev seemed the opposite
In 2014 Russia abandoned or was expelled from Antonov and the company was basically dead.
Actually Antonov is already just an airline that exploits the AN-124 of the Soviet legacy to make some money

The An-70 has nothing to do with the Il-76, Y-20 or C-17
An-70 only carries 38 tons. of fuel while the Il-76 and Y-20 carry 110,000 liters (about 90 t.)

Updating the status of the 26 VKS An-124 aircraft

There are 13 An-124-100 in the ranks of VKS

RA-82010
RF-82011
RA-82013
RA-82014
RA-82030
RF-82032
RF-82034
RA-82035
RA-82037
RA-82038
RA-82039
RA-82040
RF-82041

Aircraft with civilian registration RA- carry the insignia of the 224 LO (flying detachment), although all are assigned to the 566th VTA regiment.
Of these there is one in scheduled repair that is carried out after 10 years of flight, in theory the other 12 are right now in a combat-ready situation

The other 13 planes are not active.
We found 9 stored in Sescha, 3 in Ulyanovsk and the last flew from Sescha to Aviastar two or three years ago presumably for modernization


Of the 9 stored in Sescha there are 8 identified.
The ninth can be RA-82012 or RA-82031 (most likely).
One of these two flew to Aviastar and must be undergoing repair and modernization, to increase the active number to 14
RA-82028 is an An-124-100 that flew until 2012 and could easily be returned to service


RA-82024 and RA-82026 have been stored in Ukyanovsk for 25 years or more, it seems that they are donors of parts and engines for other aircraft.
RA-82033 is an An-124-100 that belonged to the GLITS (1338 ITS from Chkalovsky in Moscow) and flew until 2007 when it was stored there, maybe it would be easy to start up again

RA-82033 in 2012

However, Russia does not use the Il-76 to move tanks but the material of the lightest of the airborne forces and reserves the An-124 to move larger things such as MBTs, helicopters and even fighter planes, which do not fit in the Il-76

They used Il-76 aircraft to deliver T-72s to Serbia a short while back...

GarryB wrote:

However, Russia does not use the Il-76 to move tanks but the material of the lightest of the airborne forces and reserves the An-124 to move larger things such as MBTs, helicopters and even fighter planes, which do not fit in the Il-76

They  used Il-76 aircraft to deliver T-72s to Serbia a short while back...

But this is not a troop deployment mission, if you want to deploy an armored unit you do not carry it in Il-76 besides being able to carry only one tank per plane with very little margin regarding the max. payload and not able to land and engage immediately
The T-72 does not fit completely in the hold of the Il-76 due to its width without putting the sides of the hold itself at risk, the side panels should have been dismantled at least, and perhaps something else.