Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

What is the state of the Russian transport fleet? Do the transport aircraft need to be replaced? Has Russia exported any the transport aircrafts?

A broad topic.

Off the top of my head the new aircraft recently introduced include a few Il-476s, some Il-112s and Il-114s are in development to replace obsolete An-24 and An-26s. their An-124s are being refurbished and upgraded and new ones are to be built soon.

The Ryashok is to replace the An-2s, the MTA with India will replace the An-12s in service and the An-70 is dead. the An-22, An-124, and An-225 are planned to be replaced in the long term future by a modular transport family of aircraft with an 80 ton, 150 ton, and 250 ton payload class with twin, four, and six engine design using newly developed engines based on the PD-14 or something.

So basically they are slowly replacing the Ukrainian transports with Russian transports.

GarryB wrote:their An-124s are being refurbished and upgraded and new ones are to be built soon.

lol no. Not going to happen. PAK-TA is at napkin stage and honestly it isnt the time to work on it now. Il-76MD-90A and Il-76MDM (although they are cheapo's so they skipped engines upgrades iirc) should be enough for the next 15-20 years.

I'm not sure if Il-112 and Il-114 will be finally successful. They seem old concept to me, and they are too small to be really useful. Small transport aircrafts are of short range, and it means they are useful basically for internal work. But at same time internal work is mostly routine, and as a routine can be programed and packed (in bigger units) working with the time between flies. To use bigger aircrafts for internal routine work would likely save costs in the long term. By the end I think the MTA can be more useful for this purpose and would be able to replace all the older and smaller Antonovs in service (An-12, An-72, An-140, An-24-26-30-32 and An-2). For me the useful size in the following decades for a light transport military aircraft would be to move about 30 tons of payload.

I liked the projects of the PAK-TA and the MTA with India. I think they are right concepts in size and in features for the future. I was waiting some new about supersonic transport that in my opinión will be necessary to operate in the future outside of the security of the Russia's mainland. Slow air transport is very vulnerable today and would be valid only to make cheaper the internal transport operations. Also I expect the new supersonic transport aircraft to be able to operate and return without landing near hostile territory, it would make a lot safer the air transport, and it means this new aircraft needs to meed all the Airborne Troops requirements (and also Airborne Troops would be able to be the land forces to operate outside of the Russia's mainland).

I also liked the proposed steps in transported payload and I would expand the chain to lower size. I think a right sequence of payload for military transport would be: 30 tons, 50 tons, 90 tons, 150 tons and 250 tons.

I understand the Il-476 as an update of the Il-76. Maybe right.

I'm not sure if Il-112 and Il-114 will be finally successful. They seem old concept to me, and they are too small to be really useful. Small transport aircrafts are of short range, and it means they are useful basically for internal work. But at same time internal work is mostly routine, and as a routine can be programed and packed (in bigger units) working with the time between flies. To use bigger aircrafts for internal routine work would likely save costs in the long term. By the end I think the MTA can be more useful for this purpose and would be able to replace all the older and smaller Antonovs in service (An-12, An-72, An-140, An-24-26-30-32 and An-2). For me the useful size in the following decades for a light transport military aircraft would be to move about 30 tons of payload.

You have your main airfields and you have smaller airfields further out and then you have landing strips.

When distributing things like post or food or medical supplies, if you are transfering things from one side of Russia to the other then a big long range aircraft moving from a main airfield to a main airfield makes sense and is the most efficient, but when you get it to the main airfield on the other side of Russia you then need to split it up and send in in a hundred different directions to regional airfields... the payload sizes are greatly reduced, but the airfields are smaller so using a big cargo plane is simply not practical... you need smaller transports... to the point where you have an An-2 delivering 1,500kgs of post and food and engine parts and other essentials.

There are already light aircraft doing the job and they could keep doing that job for decades... An-2s have been doing their job since the late 1940s and are still useful in the job, but some of the airframes have a lot of hours on them.

the Russian AF recently took on some An-140s so they will be useful for another decade or two.

If you just want to paradrop 6 soldiers why send up an aircraft like the MTA the size of an An-12 with a 20 ton payload?

much smaller aircraft are much more efficient for the job.

Russia currently has a lot of obsolete aircraft in service... many from the Ukraine, which I am sure they will want to retire as soon as they can, but many will need to be retired despite still being very useful like the An-22s.

They currently have in service, the An-2, the An-24, the An-26, the An-72, the An-140, the An-12, the Il-76/476, the An-22, and the An-124.

they have in the process of development, the Ryashock to replace the An-2, the Il-112 and Il-114, to replace the An-24 and An-26 though they might change the Il-114 because it is so similar to the Il-112... in case you didn't know the An-24 and An-26 are very similar but one has a side loading door for cargo and the other has a rear ramp door for cargo.... if they make different versions of the Il-112 and a much more powerfully engined model for hot and high performance to replace the An-32 they might not need the Il-114.

the An-140 is new and will likely remain in service for some time unless sold off to a foreign customer that also wants more from the Ukraine perhaps. the MTA which will be joint developed with India will replace the An-12, and the Il-476 will replace all Candid based Russian aircraft... transports, tankers, AWACS, jammers etc etc. The An-22 will be withdrawn and the An-124 will continue to operate, but in the near future there will be a serious shake up I suspect because the modern Russian Army will want to be highly mobile and I suspect that means air mobile as well as rail mobile.

I rather suspect that in the near future the An-124 fleet will be expanded and that in the longer term a heavy transport family will be developed to fill the 80 ton, 150 ton and 250 ton payload range of transports currently occupied by the An-22, An-124, and An-225.

Not just tanks and heavy armour need to be moved, but fuel tanks and large rocket components will also needs to be transported around the place... of course the ideal solution would be large air ships.

I also liked the proposed steps in transported payload and I would expand the chain to lower size. I think a right sequence of payload for military transport would be: 30 tons, 50 tons, 90 tons, 150 tons and 250 tons.

You do realise that aircraft in the 20 ton payload range like the An-12 spend very little time actually hauling around 20ton payloads... and that if you had nothing smaller than a 30 ton payload aircraft it would spend 90% of its time carting around 1-2 ton payloads?

Small villages in Siberia with a landing strip rather than an airfield might need one ton of supplies a month... don't you think sending an An-12 would be a waste let alone an aircraft with 50% more payload capacity? Waiting for 24 months and sending 24 tons every two years is not an option.

It is cheaper and more efficient to have 10 MTAs and 50 Il-112s than to have 25 MTAs trying to do the job of 60 aircraft.

I understand the logic, of course, it is right, but in overall terms it seems more a civilian logic than a military logic.

I mean, for civilian purposes the things are just like you said. And will remain the same. Then there is room for new small civilian transport aircrafts.

What I see not is the military use of them in the future. For military purposes I do not see the same need of dividing the charges to come until the last corner of the country. There are some reasons for it:

- Every military thing is previously planned and can be easier to adapt to a more rational air transport model avoiding empty travels and things like this. Every military base has a planned location and size that need to agree with the military needs but also can agree with the optimization models for the right use of the resources.
- There are not as many military bases with airfields to serve. The need of dividing charges should be smaller.
- For aircrafts of 30 tons of payload we are talking of maximum weights around 80 tons. They are not as big aircrafts. It would be like 2 of the new BMD-4 inside.
- To continue taking the measure of the size of a 30 payload aircraft, every combat aircraft in active service except SU-25 and MiG-29 is between 30 and 50 tons of máximum weight. Aifields for the new fighters should not be far of covering the need for these transport aircrafts.
- Also, for a military base with 1000 soldiers serving plus families 30 tons of payload would be less than 15(?)kg per inhabitant of the base. It do not seems oversized to me.
- To provide smaller military bases or bases without a proper airfield, there are transport helicopters of enough size from Mil Mi-26 (payload of 20 tons and range of 1900 km) to smaller helicopters. This maybe the safest and the best use for them. Not all the cases need to be solved improving the airfields.
- Supersonic speed seems a need (future) to me for transporting operations that go outside of a country mainland, and more if want to cross a suposed front line. In this case speed would ad safety to the operations. In the case of a need of small operations like to paradrop 6 paratroopers in the rear of the adversary would not be better to use some adapted Su-24, Su-34 (improving standardization of the fleet) or even MiG-25 (to take better profit of older aicrafts) that even would have some selfdefense than new aircrafts from the old transport mold like Il-112 or Il-114?

In the case of the newer An-140 I can see the sale as a solution, if to find parts becomes difficult. Or even to be free of a small number of them to improve in the standardization of the fleet.

Interesting to read about the little differences between some Antonovs (An-24, An-26,...). In overall terms all them seem really vulnerable in the war of Donbass. Also I'm curious about the new Ryashok project that you commented, but I find nothing about it. Do you know some link?

eehnie wrote:Also I'm curious about the new Ryashok project that you commented, but I find nothing about it. Do you know some link?

It is misspelled, the correct name is Rysachok (Рысачок):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technoavia_Rysachok

To continue using the current transport aircraft would not be a trouble. Things like supersonic transport will not be working tomorrow, but today is the moment to think in the tomorrow. The current military air transport will continue working at least a decade, but I glad to see supersonic transport projects like the PAK-TA. It is a sign that more people is thinking by this way. The new PAK-TA would be of high capacity. For lower capacity I would expect some of the new supersonic combat aircrafts to be adapted. The bench for it is long (Su PAK-FA, MiG-31, Su-35, Su-30, Su-27, Su-34, Su-24, Su-33, MiG-25). Maybe old reconnaisance supersonic aircrafts replaced in their role progressively by drones can find here a new role. Maybe other solutions come out. And if no-one can be adapted for this kind of job, then maybe interesting to develop a light supersonic aircraft that can do some transport job, but surely there is a chance to adapt some of the current aircrafts.

Also I wish to remark that I was not confusing payload with maximum weight. This is why I said that an aircraft with 30 tons of payload can be around 80 tons of maximun weigth, and I was comparing this with the maximum weight of the current generation of fighters, attack,... aircrafts between 30 and 50 tons of máximum weight. The need of both types of aircrafts in terms of length of airfield is not as far.

Not every transport operation would need to be of supersonic transport, but some operations will need it. I talked about operations outside the mainland of the country. You explained the reason for it saying that aircrafts like An-24,.., must not work in areas of fight. This is why I tend to say that non-supersonic military transport aircrafts need to operate in the safety of the Mainland. It applies also for bigger non-supersonic aircrafts like Il-76 (of course when supersonic military transport becomes available).

At same time, I tried to explain that to improve the optimization of the non-supersonic transport aircrafts that will continue operating in the safety of the mainland, would help. First as I said in the previous comment it is necessary to consider military transport helicopters too, to avoid dual solutions for the same need. Obviously over 30 tons of payload there is not discussion since there are not as big helicopters. But under this size both aircrafts and helicopters can be considered, and to develop both solutions can become expensive and redundant despite some differences. As example, the specifications of the An-26 and Mil Mi-38 are not far in terms of payload, range and speed, and the new Il-112 would not improve it significantly since I would not buy an Il-112 for military use to work with 2 tons of load.

http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/antonov_an26_curl.htm
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/mi_38.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-112

Finally, I commented about the BMD-4 because having an Airborne Troops force it is necessary to take them into account in the development of new transport aircrafts like the MTA.

To continue using the current transport aircraft would not be a trouble.

A lot of it could do with an upgrade, and also a lot of it is made in the Ukraine, which of course is not ideal.

Focus for the moment is replacing Ukrainian aircraft with new Russian aircraft... it is good for Russian aircraft manufacturers and the Air Force to get new planes.

Things like supersonic transport will not be working tomorrow, but today is the moment to think in the tomorrow. The current military air transport will continue working at least a decade, but I glad to see supersonic transport projects like the PAK-TA.

PAK TA wont be supersonic.

For lower capacity I would expect some of the new supersonic combat aircrafts to be adapted. The bench for it is long (Su PAK-FA, MiG-31, Su-35, Su-30, Su-27, Su-34, Su-24, Su-33, MiG-25).

How would that even work?

the only way any of them could be considered transports would be the two seat models used to deliver one person in addition to the pilot from one air base to another...

Maybe old reconnaisance supersonic aircrafts replaced in their role progressively by drones can find here a new role. Maybe other solutions come out. And if no-one can be adapted for this kind of job, then maybe interesting to develop a light supersonic aircraft that can do some transport job, but surely there is a chance to adapt some of the current aircrafts.

Supersonic transport would be too expensive to be viable... few things need to be transported that quickly.

Also I wish to remark that I was not confusing payload with maximum weight. This is why I said that an aircraft with 30 tons of payload can be around 80 tons of maximun weigth, and I was comparing this with the maximum weight of the current generation of fighters, attack,... aircrafts between 30 and 50 tons of máximum weight. The need of both types of aircrafts in terms of length of airfield is not as far.

It is not about field length... most small air strips are patches of grass that is roughly flat... unpaved air strips are easier for lighter aircraft.

Not every transport operation would need to be of supersonic transport, but some operations will need it. I talked about operations outside the mainland of the country.

There is no value in supersonic transport aircraft... domestic or international. For a start you would need brand new fighters to escort such supersonic transports because most modern fighters wont fly more than 1,000km at supersonic speed before they run out of fuel.

A supersonic transport plane is more vulnerable to SAMs because at supersonic speed it will fly level and straight... an incredibly easy target.

You explained the reason for it saying that aircrafts like An-24,.., must not work in areas of fight. This is why I tend to say that non-supersonic military transport aircrafts need to operate in the safety of the Mainland. It applies also for bigger non-supersonic aircrafts like Il-76 (of course when supersonic military transport becomes available).

Places where you would send transport aircraft you would not send supersonic transport planes... that is silly... you would deal with enemy air defences where you want to send the transports and then you equip them with defense suites (chaff, flares, DIRCMS etc).

First as I said in the previous comment it is necessary to consider military transport helicopters too, to avoid dual solutions for the same need. Obviously over 30 tons of payload there is not discussion since there are not as big helicopters.

Helicopters and fixed wing transports are different machines with different uses... fixed wing is much much cheaper to buy and to operate, but where there are no airfields at all you need to use helicopters.

As example, the specifications of the An-26 and Mil Mi-38 are not far in terms of payload, range and speed, and the new Il-112 would not improve it significantly since I would not buy an Il-112 for military use to work with 2 tons of load.

The only helicopter in the 2 ton payload range is the Ka-60/62/64 family, and its flight speed and range is pathetic compared with the Il-112... if there is an airfield at each end of the flight it will be much cheaper to operate the Il-112 and much faster than any helo type.

Finally, I commented about the BMD-4 because having an Airborne Troops force it is necessary to take them into account in the development of new transport aircrafts like the MTA.

The VDV use Il-476s... the MTA would be too small for most of its equipment.

About the need of supersonic air transport.

If we compare the situation of the military air transport with the land (or the sea) transport, we can compare the current air transport aircrafts and helicopters with the land trucks. In the three cases, there are not important differences between military or civilian trucks, helicopters and aircrafts. All them have not special protection and like the trucks they are very vulnerable.

In the case of the land military transport we would not cross the front line with a truck. Decades ago the military designers were conscient that it was needed aditional protection for the military transport in the areas of fight. The solution was to create armored vehicles for land military transport in the front line. Also the military ships are decently armored, but in the case of air transport it seems difficult to work with armored aircrafts. But a solution is also needed for the air transport.

Which would be the right variables that would add safety to the air transport? The speed seems to be one of the most importants. Maybe possible to find more. To add speed to the air transport would add safety to the military air transport in the front line. I glad to see how new projects like the PAK-TA seems to go also by this way. Every source talk about the project as a supersonic aircraft. I think it will become a trend for the military air transport in areas of conflict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAK_TA

Of course supersonic air transport would be vulnerable, like the armored transport by land is, but would be significantly less vulnerable than the current model of air transport. Here is the improvement.

I tend to think that we will see supersonic military transport aircrafts of all the needed sizes. And like in the case of the land military transport, the transport armored vehicles are closer in design to the land combat vehicles than to the trucks, the future supersonic military transport aircrafts will be closer in design to the air combat vehicles than to the current transport aircrafts and helicopters. The future supersonic military transport aircrafts can come as an adaptation or development from some technologies used in air combat aircrafts.

About non-supersonic air transport

If we continue with the air transport - land transport comparation, we can see how the trucks are still very used for military transport purposes outside of the contested areas. The transport in trucks is cheaper than the transport in armored vehicles. For air transport we will see the same. The current slow and low protected transport aircraft and helicopters will continue working for military purposes under the safety of the mainland of the country.

In both cases, air transport and land transport, the trucks, aircrafts and helicopters used for military and civilian purposes are basically the same. Taking into account that should not be close to the front line the logical way to solve the issue would be to work with vehicles of civilian design, without take part in their development, except when it is necessary to meet some specific military requirements like the transport of armored vehicles. In land transport there are trains and heavy trucks designed for civilian purposes that can be valid for the transport of armored vehicles, but in the case of the air transport it seems likely that the military forces will need to take part in the design and the funding of the big non-supersonic transport aircrafts and helicopters. Basically over 15 tons of payload (over 40-50 tons of máximum weight).

The sense to take part and to fund the design and the development of little size non supersonic transport aircraft and helicopters will be lower and lower with the time. As we see in the non-armored land transport.

About Russian military airfields.

I found a very interesting source that includes many basical data about many active and old arifields in countries of the old Warsaw Pact. Here is a link:

http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/russia/

In this link there is access to an excel archive that is very complete. The source has plenty of data and can be interesting if you like the issue.
It includes 888 Russian airfields active and abandoned, and between them 207 are marked as MIL airfields, 15 as MIL/CIV, and 12 as CIV/MIL.

Between the data, with the help of a proper ordering, we can see how only a few of the Russian airfields have a runway of less than 2000m (22 of the 207, 0 of the 15 and 3 of the 12). And most of them are airfields of helicopter bases or are abandoned airfields build to older and smaller aircrafts.

Also we can see how only a few of them have an elevation higher to 1000m over the sea level (20 of the 207, 3 of the 15 and 0 of the 12). Of them, 6 are under 2500m of runway (5 helicopter bases and 1 abandoned airfield).

In this second link there some info about the need runway lenght for aircrafts of different size that explains how habitually aircrafts of 90 tons have enough with runways of 1900m.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway#Runway_length

It seems to confirm my comment about how the airfields working with fighters, bomebers, interceptors,... between 30 and 50 tons of maximum weight would be close to meet the requirements for a 80 tons transport aircraft of about 30 tons of payload. All this would mean that transport aircrafts of this size would be able to operate in around the 90% of the military airfields of Russia with maybe minor improvements. It is logical to me because as I tried to explain before a military base is a planned pack of good size in terms of personel and it allows to divide not too much the charge as in the civilian world.

Checking in this database the location of the military aircfields that can operate with aircrafts of the size of the current An-12 or bigger, there is room to think that the Russian military air transport has a share of logistic centers in optimized locations covered by transport aircrafts of big size and range. It is basic. The aditional range of smaller aircrafts fliying empty should not be needed. Also to travel empty is against every optimization rule.

Surely a transport aircraft of 30 tons payload with a decent range at full load would be near to the optimal basis for the chain of big transport aircrafts. It would be a natural successor of the current An-12 that likely can operate in a 90% of the Russians military airfields.


It seems the future to me, sorry if my designer and manager side gets too developed. It is where I have a little more knowledge.

If we compare the situation of the situation of the military air transport with the land (or the sea) transport, we can compare the current air transport aircrafts and helicopters with the land trucks. In the three cases, there are not important differences between military or civilian trucks, helicopters and aircrafts. All them have not special protection and like the trucks they are very vulnerable.

Except anyone with a saw can cut down a tree so it falls over the road and stop a truck. Try that with an aircraft at 10,000m plus altitude.

Or even a helicopter.

In the case of the land military transport we would not cross the front line with a truck.

Military transport generally supplies friendly forces behind friendly lines and never goes anywhere near front lines.

Which would be the right variables that would add safety to the air transport? The speed seems to be one of the most importants.

No it isn't. It is the least important. Not flying over significant enemy air defences is the most important.

To add speed to the air transport would add safety to the military air transport in the front line. I glad to see how new projects like the PAK-TA seems to go also by this way. Every source talk about the project as a supersonic aircraft. I think it will become a trend for the military air transport in areas of conflict.

It is talk by people who have not thought things through.

Of course supersonic air transport would be vulnerable, like the armored transport by land is, but would be significantly less vulnerable than the current model of air transport.

Supersonic transport is not practical.

The future supersonic military transport aircrafts can come as an adaptation or development from some technologies used in air combat aircrafts.

No they wont.

Modern supersonic aircraft are designed and built for a purpose... whether it is bombing or interception or as a fighter. None of those purposes are useful for large bulky heavy payloads that need to be transported.

It is basic. The aditional range of smaller aircrafts fliying empty should not be needed. Also to travel empty is against every optimization rule.

No. What is basic is that in a system... a working system there will always need to be a distribution network. Only an idiot would think that a currrently working system that uses everything from cycle couriers , through to small cars, vans, light trucks, medium trucks and heavy trucks could ever make the transition to just heavy trucks... that is just stupid. though not as stupid as suggesting that the next generation of heavy trucks will be supersonic...

Surely a transport aircraft of 30 tons payload with a decent range at full load would be near to the optimal basis for the chain of big transport aircrafts. It would be a natural successor of the current An-12 that likely can operate in a 90% of the Russians military airfields.

What exactly is your fixation with 30 ton payload aircraft?

The facts of the matter is that the MTA will be a 20 ton payload aircraft... it has already been decided. The second fact is the next aircraft up will be a 60 ton payload aircraft called an Il-476.

The other aircraft they are designing have already been described as a twin engine, a four engine, and a six engined aircraft in the 80, 150, and 250 ton payload range... in other words a family that will likely replace the An-22, the An-124, and the An-225.

Currently the An-22 is near retirement, but the An-124 is OK, the one that is needed soon would be the 250 ton payload aircraft, mainly for use by the strategic rocket forces and the Russian space agency for moving around rather large fuel tanks and rockets.

None of the new Russian transports will be supersonic... if you have knowledge regarding design the you will know about competing features... if you want a large heavy cargo to be carried internally then your aircraft needs to be big... big does not fly well or fast.

I am assuming you know about area rule regarding supersonic body structures and the amount of power needed to move an aircraft at supersonic speeds getting rather bigger as mass increases...

Then the MTA is more developed tan I tough. I even see how the project is identified as Il-212, with 20 tons of payload and 68 tons of máximum weight. It is a good project that likely will succeed in my opinión to opérate inside the safety of the mainland zone. No, I was not obsesed with 30 tons, there is not a trouble with it for me. The Il-212 project as is exposed by its specifications seems good to me. Also not far of the optimal point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAC/HAL_Il-214#Specifications

I would say the same about the Il-476 that if I'm not wrong is an update of the current Il-76. Also not far of the optimal point. We talked here about 50 tons payload.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76#Military_variants

If you have more info about the projects for 80 tons, 150 tons and 250 tons would be welcomed. As I said before it seems right to me.

But at same we need to forget not the PAK-TA project. It is a very nice Project that would make available go outside of the safety area. As a person with technical knowledge (Master Engineering formation for European standads), I would recommend to pay not too much attention to bulshit like this article:

http://www.popsci.com/look-ridiculous-russian-supersonic-transport-concept

The alone ridiculous things in the article are the tone of the writer, and how big seems his technical ignorance.

The purpose is ambitious yes, and would be a big advance over current military air transport. Between all the air transport projects is the nicest by far. The alone really innovative. I hope to see more people supporting this project like I support it. The science and the military technical solutions advance when we leave repeating one and other time the same projects. And this area needs an impulse like is being proved in the current war in Novorussia by the high vulnerability of the transport aircrafts and helicopters.

If there is not a progress in the air transport we go to the scenario explained by GarryB:

GarryB wrote:

Which would be the right variables that would add safety to the air transport? The speed seems to be one of the most importants.

No it isn't. It is the least important. Not flying over significant enemy air defences is the most important.

GarryB wrote:the secret is to not fly transport aircraft in contested airspace...

Taking into account that one An-24 can be shut down even without a siginificant air defence, we can go to an scenario of renounce to the air transport in contested areas. It seems wrong to me and to who is finding something else to move tropos around the world like the PAK-TA project.

As in the land transport, the air transport can not stop back the front line. It is not posible to renounce to this transport, not in the land transport and not in the air transport, because in the front line there are needs of land and air transport. The first is to transport the soldiers in combat and their supplies in the battleground. In land this is why the IFV and APCs were developed and succeed, and in the air transport we will see a close development based on improvements in variables increase the safety in the air.

If there is a renounce to the air transport over contested areas, the entire Airborne Troops force would lose one of their main purposes. They are not only to fight in air dominance scenarios, they would likely need to move also in more adverse scenarios. It is obvious why Russia is developing a safer way for air transport. While they see how difficult is to do the air transport job over contested zones with the current transport aircrafts and helicopters they are not ready to concede that not flying over dangerous zones is the solution. As a tactic is good and I would apply it when it is possible, but the air transport need some better solution for the scenarios where it is not possible. And as the land transport in IFV and APC is more expensive than in trucks, the new solution for air transport will be also more expensive than the air transport in safe áreas, and will be safer but not totally inmune.

Every one can easily see the difference and say who would be a safer aircraft in a contested zone, between as example a MiG-31 and an An-24. Why the MiG-31 would be safer? Why no one would say that a MiG-31 must not fly over a contested zone, when it is just designed to work in contested zones? What variables make safer a MiG-31 than a An-24? There is a need to answer these questions

Some of the things that you said are just wrong, as it was wrong when you talked about the airfields as a reason that would impose a big divission of charges. As example you are wrong when you said:

GarryB wrote:Ummm... you are confusing payload with maximum take off weight...

(from a previous message)

GarryB wrote:Military transport generally supplies friendly forces behind friendly lines and never goes anywhere near front lines.

As explained there is military transport inside the front line. IFV and APCs do military transport of soldiers and their supplies. In the case of air transport, there is a military transport needed for Airborne Troops operations, as example. There are multiple cases.

GarryB wrote:

The future supersonic military transport aircrafts can come as an adaptation or development from some technologies used in air combat aircrafts.

No they wont.

Modern supersonic aircraft are designed and built for a purpose... whether it is bombing or interception or as a fighter. None of those purposes are useful for large bulky heavy payloads that need to be transported.

You only need to look at the main engine of the future PAK-TA to understand well my comment. There are many more details in the PAK-TA Project that come from a common basis used in the supersonic technology.

GarryB wrote:

Which would be the right variables that would add safety to the air transport? The speed seems to be one of the most importants.

No it isn't. It is the least important.

This is wrong because higher speed let obviously some potentially dammaging ammunition (of every type of arms) without effect. As example the ammunition of the SA-6 has lower speed than a MiG-25. We can not say the same about an An-24 or an helicopter.

Excpet to renounce to fly in contested áreas which variable would have better effect on the safety? Without too much thinking I can say that at least the dimmensions and the weight of the aircraft/helicopter are less important than the speed, contradicting your comment.

GarryB wrote:

To add speed to the air transport would add safety to the military air transport in the front line. I glad to see how new projects like the PAK-TA seems to go also by this way. Every source talk about the project as a supersonic aircraft. I think it will become a trend for the military air transport in areas of conflict.

It is talk by people who have not thought things through.

It this is also wrong.

GarryB wrote:

Of course supersonic air transport would be vulnerable, like the armored transport by land is, but would be significantly less vulnerable than the current model of air transport.

Supersonic transport is not practical.

Also wrong. The new PAK-TA Project is not being impulsed to spend free time. It has a practical purpose for air transport.

GarryB wrote:

It is basic. The aditional range of smaller aircrafts fliying empty should not be needed. Also to travel empty is against every optimization rule.

No. What is basic is that in a system... a working system there will always need to be a distribution network. Only an idiot would think that a currrently working system that uses everything from cycle couriers , through to small cars, vans, light trucks, medium trucks and heavy trucks could ever make the transition to just heavy trucks... that is just stupid. though not as stupid as suggesting that the next generation of heavy trucks will be supersonic...

Here you divided wrongly the quote. "It is basic" was refered to the previous phrase: "Checking in this database the location of the military aircfields that can operate with aircrafts of the size of the current An-12 or bigger, there is room to think that the Russian military air transport has a share of logistic centers in optimized locations covered by transport aircrafts of big size and range. It is basic."

I just think that the Russian military forces have a share of logistic centers that can be covered by aircrafts of the size of the new MTA IL-212 and the old An-12, of bigger size than many aircrafts that you commented before.

The following comment about the aditional range of smaller aircrafts traveling empty, like all the previously mentioned, is refered to the fact that with the share of logistic centers covered by bigger aircrafts that cover all of the northern and eastern oblasts of Siberia, there is not need of ranges of 5000km for low charge travels. This feature of some small aircrafts has more a civilian purpose, since to make layovers is annoying many times for the people that is paying a ticket, but it is not a problem when we transport materials and supplies.

Also in this paragraph you distorted strongly what I'm saying here. Sorry but not by distorting my comments you will become right.

GarryB wrote:None of the new Russian transports will be supersonic... if you have knowledge regarding design the you will know about competing features... if you want a large heavy cargo to be carried internally then your aircraft needs to be big... big does not fly well or fast.

I am assuming you know about area rule regarding supersonic body structures and the amount of power needed to move an aircraft at supersonic speeds getting rather bigger as mass increases...

The new PAK-TA is being designed supersonic. I hope it becomes succesful.

As I commented before my formation is of Master Engineering level for European standards. I spended decent time learnig about airfoils, turbines, electric and combustion engines, mathematical optimization, topographic technical drawing, transport engineering and economic management between other things. I would appreciate to know also about your technical formation.

Then the MTA is more developed tan I tough. I even see how the project is identified as Il-212, with 20 tons of payload and 68 tons of máximum weight.

Its design parameters were set quite some time ago... it is to replace the An-12 in Russian and Indian service... it is a C-130 class aircraft.

I would say the same about the Il-476 that if I'm not wrong is an update of the current Il-76. Also not far of the optimal point. We talked here about 50 tons payload.

Likely 60 tons payload max.

If you have more info about the projects for 80 tons, 150 tons and 250 tons would be welcomed. As I said before it seems right to me.

There was a video posted on this forum a few months back showing one artists impression.

the weights directly correspond to the An-22, An-124, and An-225 aircraft which are ukrainian, the video suggested a family of aircraft to replace these three with a unified engine, where they have two, four, and 6 engines respectively of the same type...

This is the conservative model family:



And this is the exotic model:



The angle of the wings shows it is not supersonic... not enough wing sweep.

The first is to transport the soldiers in combat and their supplies in the battleground. In land this is why the IFV and APCs were developed and succeed, and in the air transport we will see a close development based on improvements in variables increase the safety in the air.

Not flying aircraft in contested air space is standard procedure by everyone. Material is moved by armoured land vehicle on or near the front lines... the only things moving near the front lines are men (in armoured vehicles). Moving food and fuel and ammo doesn't go to the front lines or past them... you don't supply food and fuel and ammo to the enemy... you move it to staging areas behind the front line and vehicles from the front line withdraw and get fuel and ammo and food and men and then go back to the front line.

If there is a renounce to the air transport over contested areas, the entire Airborne Troops force would lose one of their main purposes. They are not only to fight in air dominance scenarios, they would likely need to move also in more adverse scenarios. It is obvious why Russia is developing a safer way for air transport. While they see how difficult is to do the air transport job over contested zones with the current transport aircrafts and helicopters they are not ready to concede that not flying over dangerous zones is the solution. As a tactic is good and I would apply it when it is possible, but the air transport need some better solution for the scenarios where it is not possible. And as the land transport in IFV and APC is more expensive than in trucks, the new solution for air transport will be also more expensive than the air transport in safe áreas, and will be safer but not totally inmune.

Very few countries will have 360 degree 24/7 coverage of their air space... VDV units would fly over a front line that has been pummelled and had its air defences suppressed and it will get into the enemies rear area... like a port or a significant air field, which they will land 150km away from well away from the airfields air defences... which would be rather strong to prevent it being attacked and captured and used to land enemy forces. Instead the VDV would land 150km away and drive to the air field and take it using land vehicles... its ground defences will be weak because it is way behind the front lines and once captured more transports can fly in forces and equipment and the landing can be expanded to attack nearby ports or towns and expand their foothold.

Having supersonic transports would make no difference except that a supersonic transport big enough to hold 100 paratroopers would be the size of Concord and likely twice as expensive to run...

Every one can easily see the difference and say who would be a safer aircraft in a contested zone, between as example a MiG-31 and an An-24. Why the MiG-31 would be safer? Why no one would say that a MiG-31 must not fly over a contested zone, when it is just designed to work in contested zones? What variables make safer a MiG-31 than a An-24? There is a need to answer these questions

If the MiG-31 flew low and slow it would be just as vulnerable to MANPADs... the fact that it is an interceptor and will spend most of its time at much higher altitudes means it would be rather less vulnerable. Anything that could reach it at its operational altitude would also be fast enough to shoot it down no matter how fast it was moving.

Some of the things that you said are just wrong, as it was wrong when you talked about the airfields as a reason that would impose a big divission of charges. As example you are wrong when you said:

Why was I wrong about airfields? You talked about airfields the aircraft might be based at, you said nothing about the air strips they might be needed to land supplies to.

You also said nothing about what the loads would likely be.

As explained there is military transport inside the front line. IFV and APCs do military transport of soldiers and their supplies. In the case of air transport, there is a military transport needed for Airborne Troops operations, as example. There are multiple cases.

Air borne troops operating on the front line will get their supplies by land transport just like the units operating next to them. VDV forces deep behind enemy lines will need supplies paradropped, but as they will not be near any enemy active air defences subsonic transports that delivered them will do the job.

You only need to look at the main engine of the future PAK-TA to understand well my comment.

What main engine?  Look at the diagram and model in the image above and look at the wing sweep... the same sweep and subsonic transport aircraft... do you really think this model will be supersonic?

The big fan thing with blown flaps is not new... tiny winged supersonic planes used that to allow the use of shorter airstrips and I suspect this subsonic transport will use it for the same purpose... to improve low speed handling and reduce takeoff and landing runs.

As example the ammunition of the SA-6 has lower speed than a MiG-25.

SA-6 is a low to medium area SAM and was never intended to engage high altitude high speed aircraft.

Flying at low altitude the MiG-25 would not be safe from an SA-6.

Without too much thinking I can say that at least the dimmensions and the weight of the aircraft/helicopter are less important than the speed, contradicting your comment.

But where does this speed come from? What engines exactly are you considering to move these enormous aircraft at these high speeds? Modern engines for transport types are like Boeing engines.... high power, but high bypass subsonic engines... to get supersonic speed from a transport plane you will need to replace those fuel efficient turbofans with inefficient turbojets, and triple their power... and where are you going to put all that fuel you are going to need?

The new PAK-TA Project is not being impulsed to spend free time. It has a practical purpose for air transport.

It is not supersonic.

The new PAK-TA is being designed supersonic. I hope it becomes succesful.

The design they have shown and models they have shown are not supersonic designs...

As I commented before my formation is of Master Engineering level for European standards. I spended decent time learnig about airfoils, turbines, electric and combustion engines, mathematical optimization, topographic technical drawing, transport engineering and economic management between other things. I would appreciate to know also about your technical formation.

Then you will be familiar with "area rule" in the design of aircraft intended to be supersonic, and the fact that the engine power to move a large transport aircraft would require engines of significant power... and that transport aircraft require internal volume to store the material they carry... unless the Russians are inventing the Tardis, the actual PAK TA aircraft family will look like this:

That is literally napkin drawings just to illustrate the different class of aircraft and maybe what parts will be shared. I can assure you it wont look like that.

I think you are trying to see too much from this draw. At a first view I would say that this draw is done drawing freehand. This draw is not done following an scale of the real project. This is sure. A suposedly secret project need to keep secret the real dimensions of the aircraft, and the best way to assure a ramdom but natural distortion of the dimensions is to present a draw done drawing freehand.

Then, it is not rare that we can see some angle distorted, but it means not that the things declared at the presentation to be false. Checking the draw, there are details that evidence drawing freehand, like the fact that the axis is not a true straight line, and more details.

The draw was new to me. Thank you for posting it.

GarryB wrote:Why was I wrong about airfields? You talked about airfields the aircraft might be based at, you said nothing about the air strips they might be needed to land supplies to.

You also said nothing about what the loads would likely be.

You was wrong when denied that there is a real chance to come to most of the Russian military airfields with transport aircrafts of the size of the successor of the An-12, defending a high need of smaller aircrafts. Checking the location of the Russian military airfields of the source, it is very likely that Russia has a share of logistic centers by the entire mainland covered by aircrafts of this size working under optimized procedures, which mean to avoid empty travels.

There are only a few military airfields that would need to operate with smaller aircrafts or helicopters, they would not need vehicles of high range, and most are from helicopter bases or are abandoned.

I explained how for a base of 1000 soldiers plus families, 30 tons of payload would be about 15 (?) kg by person living in the base, being not an oversized aircraft. If the new Il-214 will have 20tons, it would be about 10(?) kg by person. Less oversized still. Travels with the maximum payload are very likely, even if they need some layover to refuel.

It would be more details to comment but are not too important.

http://russia-insider.com/en/science-tech/revival-russias-aviation-industry-new-russian-transport-aircraft/ri13262

Real insiders?

I see too much reference to the western aircrafts... it is like if they need to do the assimilation to western aircrafts to understand the overall outlook in Russia. Also Im surprised to read about the "unfortunate" closure of the Antonov Bureau in a suposedly pro-Russian source that is accussing to others of having pro-Ukranian sympathies.

I see an important technical mistake on this article. The article ignored the existence of the Il-96, but Russia recently ordered some of them. This is an aircraft with a maximum payload of 92000 Kg in its transport version, and a maximum take-off weight of 270000 Kg. It is just in the class of the mentioned An-22.

Taking into account the existence of the Il-96, I doubt that Russia really needs to design fast a new aircraft of the same class (named Il-106 in the article) to replace the An-22. According to the reports of the public sources, Russia would have 5 An-22 in active service and 6 more in the reserve. Until now Russia aproximately ordered the same amount of Il-96. I would say that the replacement of the An-22 is being covered or at least is very easily doable with the ordered Il-96.

The Il-96 can be used perfectly as gap closer until the new Il-PAK-TA be finished (like the new version of the Tu-160 seems to be used as a gap closer until the new Tu-PAK-DA be ready).

http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/
http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/1189/

eehnie wrote:http://russia-insider.com/en/science-tech/revival-russias-aviation-industry-new-russian-transport-aircraft/ri13262

Real insiders?

I see too much reference to the western aircrafts... it is like if they need to do the assimilation to western aircrafts to understand the overall outlook in Russia. Also Im surprised to read about the "unfortunate" closure of the Antonov Bureau in a suposedly pro-Russian source that is accussing to others of having pro-Ukranian sympathies.

I see an important technical mistake on this article. The article ignored the existence of the Il-96, but Russia recently ordered some of them. This is an aircraft with a maximum payload of 92000 Kg in its transport version, and a maximum take-off weight of 270000 Kg. It is just in the class of the mentioned An-22.

Taking into account the existence of the Il-96, I doubt that Russia really needs to design fast a new aircraft of the same class (named Il-106 in the article) to replace the An-22. According to the reports of the public sources, Russia would have 5 An-22 in active service and 6 more in the reserve. Until now Russia aproximately ordered the same amount of Il-96. I would say that the replacement of the An-22 is being covered or at least is very easily doable with the ordered Il-96.

The Il-96 can be used perfectly as gap closer until the new Il-PAK-TA be finished (like the new version of the Tu-160 seems to be used as a gap closer until the new Tu-PAK-DA be ready).

http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/
http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/1189/

The Il-96 can't operate in unprepared runways, it also needs ground infraestructure to load/unload (as it has no ramps), so it can't really replace a military cargo aircraft like the An-22 or the An-124.

Svyatoslavich wrote:

eehnie wrote:http://russia-insider.com/en/science-tech/revival-russias-aviation-industry-new-russian-transport-aircraft/ri13262

Real insiders?

I see too much reference to the western aircrafts... it is like if they need to do the assimilation to western aircrafts to understand the overall outlook in Russia. Also Im surprised to read about the "unfortunate" closure of the Antonov Bureau in a suposedly pro-Russian source that is accussing to others of having pro-Ukranian sympathies.

I see an important technical mistake on this article. The article ignored the existence of the Il-96, but Russia recently ordered some of them. This is an aircraft with a maximum payload of 92000 Kg in its transport version, and a maximum take-off weight of 270000 Kg. It is just in the class of the mentioned An-22.

Taking into account the existence of the Il-96, I doubt that Russia really needs to design fast a new aircraft of the same class (named Il-106 in the article) to replace the An-22. According to the reports of the public sources, Russia would have 5 An-22 in active service and 6 more in the reserve. Until now Russia aproximately ordered the same amount of Il-96. I would say that the replacement of the An-22 is being covered or at least is very easily doable with the ordered Il-96.

The Il-96 can be used perfectly as gap closer until the new Il-PAK-TA be finished (like the new version of the Tu-160 seems to be used as a gap closer until the new Tu-PAK-DA be ready).

http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/
http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/1189/

The Il-96 can't operate in unprepared runways, it also needs ground infraestructure to load/unload (as it has no ramps), so it can't really replace a military cargo aircraft like the An-22 or the An-124.

The ordered Il-96 will receive some works to adapt them to several roles. Some of them from existing units and others will be built new.

Do you think it is not possible to fix it? Do you think it is easier to do a new aircraft of the same class, of the same dimenssions?

eehnie wrote:

Svyatoslavich wrote:

Taking into account the existence of the Il-96, I doubt that Russia really needs to design fast a new aircraft of the same class (named Il-106 in the article) to replace the An-22. According to the reports of the public sources, Russia would have 5 An-22 in active service and 6 more in the reserve. Until now Russia aproximately ordered the same amount of Il-96. I would say that the replacement of the An-22 is being covered or at least is very easily doable with the ordered Il-96.

The Il-96 can't operate in unprepared runways, it also needs ground infraestructure to load/unload (as it has no ramps), so it can't really replace a military cargo aircraft like the An-22 or the An-124.

The ordered Il-96 will receive some works to adapt them to several roles. Some of them from existing units and others will be built new.

Do you think it is not possible to fix it? Do you think it is easier to do a new aircraft of the same class, of the same dimenssions?

Eehnie, the Il-96 is an airliner. With low-slung wings with the spar arrangement passing directly through the lower fuselage body.
It was not designed as a cargo transport aircraft/airlifter.
Being the same size as the An-22 is meaningless if you don't look at design features.

There are very solid and valid reasons that airlifters all around the world have features such as shoulder mounted wings for example. For the exact same reasons that every single USSR and now Russian airlifter/cargo planes are designed with features like that.

It would be far far cheaper and far far better to design a purpose built cargo lifter from scratch than try and force or "fix" the Il-96 into a role it simply isn't designed for. Doing that would end up with a completely new aircraft anyway....... an aircraft with a high mounted wing, loading ramps, and a floor designed to take cargo or certain loads.. In other words, a cargo transport plane/airlifter.

wilhelm wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Svyatoslavich wrote:

Taking into account the existence of the Il-96, I doubt that Russia really needs to design fast a new aircraft of the same class (named Il-106 in the article) to replace the An-22. According to the reports of the public sources, Russia would have 5 An-22 in active service and 6 more in the reserve. Until now Russia aproximately ordered the same amount of Il-96. I would say that the replacement of the An-22 is being covered or at least is very easily doable with the ordered Il-96.

The Il-96 can't operate in unprepared runways, it also needs ground infraestructure to load/unload (as it has no ramps), so it can't really replace a military cargo aircraft like the An-22 or the An-124.

The ordered Il-96 will receive some works to adapt them to several roles. Some of them from existing units and others will be built new.

Do you think it is not possible to fix it? Do you think it is easier to do a new aircraft of the same class, of the same dimenssions?

Eehnie, the Il-96 is an airliner. With low-slung wings with the spar arrangement passing directly through the lower fuselage body.
It was not designed as a cargo transport aircraft/airlifter.
Being the same size as the An-22 is meaningless if you don't look at design features.

There are very solid and valid reasons that airlifters all around the world have features such as shoulder mounted wings for example. For the exact same reasons that every single USSR and now Russian airlifter/cargo planes are designed with features like that.

It would be far far cheaper and far far better to design a purpose built cargo lifter from scratch than try and force or "fix" the Il-96 into a role it simply isn't designed for. Doing that would end up with a completely new aircraft anyway....... an aircraft with a high mounted wing, loading ramps, and a floor designed to take cargo or certain loads.. In other words, a cargo transport plane/airlifter.

Check the links that I posted. It clearly shows that Im talking about a transport version of the Il-96 that is being offered for sale. And the Russian MoD ordered several of them for different roles.

Despite to be a little better or a little worse design for this use, the question is that the transport version of the Il-96 must be considered before to go after a new aircraft. The aircraft is real today, and the transport version of the Il-96 would be able to do the work of the An-22 with only some minor changes. The major chapters of the design are valid. The engines of the Il-96 are useful without changes, the aerodynamical balance is done, the size and dimessions are just the demanded (as example the fuselage diameter of the transport version of the Il-96 is the right for the new armata tanks and is about the same of the An-22), and the aircraft has an outstanding range (5000Km at full load, 90000Kg, with more than 10000Km for smaller loads specified in the link).

If the solution to the question is to design practically a twin aircraft but new, I would think twice before to afford the expensive process before the service life of the Il-96 be finished. As example, which engines would take Ilyushin to do this new aircraft, the engines of the Il-96 or would demand new engines? To take the same engines after to rule out the Il-96 would be like a joke, and to design new engines of this size is really difficult and expensive.

eehnie wrote:
and the transport version of the Il-96 would be able to do the work of the An-22 with only some minor changes. The major chapters of the design are valid. The engines of the Il-96 are useful without changes, the aerodynamical balance is done, the size and dimessions are just the demanded (as example the fuselage diameter of the transport version of the Il-96 is the right for the new armata tanks and is about the same of the An-22), and the aircraft has an outstanding range (5000Km at full load, 90000Kg, with more than 10000Km for smaller loads specified in the link).

No, the usable fuselage diameter is not the same as the An-22.
Like I said, look at the wing of the Il-96.
The entire wing spar structure, with associated integrated fuel tanks, goes slap bang through the middle of the lower fuselage. The undercarriage needs somewhere to go. There is simply no way around those inconvenient details.

The wing spar structure and undercarriage bays ensure that there is a maximum internal height at that point that is only a little higher than an An-12 or C-130, and is almost 2 meters lower than the cargo bay of the An-22. It is too low for an Armata, apart from the fact that you can't get an Armata in the plane in the first place without destroying the plane.

The links you provided detail the transport version capable of transporting standardised aviation containers, called Unit Load Device. They are probably more accurately described as pallets rather than containers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_load_device

They are small. If you've ever flown, or been at an airport, you've probably seen some before.
You will find the Ill-96 on the list in the wiki link above, and it's capacity, along with all the other airliners these compact units were designed to be carried by.

Go and google pics of the internal cargo configuration of the Il-96, as well as it's external layout. All will be revealed to you.
Along with the wing and undercarriage encroachment, the cargo floor on the transport Il-96 mirrors the passenger model. Now think about it for a moment, and all that entails regarding it's purpose in structural strength.

wilhelm wrote:

eehnie wrote:
and the transport version of the Il-96 would be able to do the work of the An-22 with only some minor changes. The major chapters of the design are valid. The engines of the Il-96 are useful without changes, the aerodynamical balance is done, the size and dimessions are just the demanded (as example the fuselage diameter of the transport version of the Il-96 is the right for the new armata tanks and is about the same of the An-22), and the aircraft has an outstanding range (5000Km at full load, 90000Kg, with more than 10000Km for smaller loads specified in the link).

No, the usable fuselage diameter is not the same as the An-22.
Like I said, look at the wing of the Il-96.
The entire wing spar structure, with associated integrated fuel tanks, goes slap bang through the middle of the lower fuselage. The undercarriage needs somewhere to go. There is simply no way around those inconvenient details.

The wing spar structure and undercarriage bays ensure that there is a maximum internal height at that point that is only a little higher than an An-12 or C-130, and is almost 2 meters lower than the cargo bay of the An-22. It is too low for an Armata, apart from the fact that you can't get an Armata in the plane in the first place without destroying the plane.

The links you provided detail the transport version capable of transporting standardised aviation containers, called Unit Load Device. They are probably more accurately described as pallets rather than containers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_load_device

They are small. If you've ever flown, or been at an airport, you've probably seen some before.
You will find the Ill-96 on the list in the wiki link above, and it's capacity, along with all the other airliners these compact units were designed to be carried by.

Go and google pics of the internal cargo configuration of the Il-96, as well as it's external layout. All will be revealed to you.
Along with the wing and undercarriage encroachment, the cargo floor on the transport Il-96 mirrors the passenger model. Now think about it for a moment, and all that entails regarding it's purpose in structural strength.

The fuselage diameter of the Il-96 is 6.08m, the fuselage diameter of the An-22 is 6.20m and the fuselage diameter of the Il-76 is 4.80m. The fuselage diameter of a new Il-106 of 80-100 tons of payload would be very close to this measure (6.20m). And the external dimenssions of an aircraft are far more difficult to change than the internal since they affect to the aerodynamical balance of the aircraft.

To analize the internal necessary dimenssions, it is necessary to take into account that tanks are high density loads. The volume of the cargo cabin of an An-22 would allow to have 3 T-14 inside the aircraft, but it would exceed the payload by far. The An-22 has a payload of 80000 Kg which mean that only can transport one T-14 tank plus something else under 30 tons. It means that most of its cargo cabin of 33m of lenght would be empty if used for this purpose.

The Il-96 has a payload of 92000 Kg, which means that is surely is still not enough for 2 T-14. The question that you commented about the wings structure of the Il-96 affects to a section of the potential cargo cabin of this aircraft (after some minor changes in the internal distribution of the aircraft plus some new door). The central section of the cargo cabin would be affected, but I doubt that it would not leave still sections in the cargo cabin, in the front and/or in the rear part, with the lenght required for a T-14 taking into account that the height of the tank would be about 3.3 m but only in part of its 10.8 m of length (according to some reports that may not be exact). The range of this aircraft with only a T-14 inside would be more than 10000 Km.

Between the minor changes in relative terms that I commented, would be to change the internal cargo cabin and to open one or two doors in the fuselage to allow to put inside the aircraft some military loads, like tanks. These doors need not to be necessarily ramps, because it is possible to use external ramps (far easier and cheaper to build than to design and build an entire new aircraft).

Again I need to say that I would think twice before to rule out the Il-96, and of course, it is a big mistake to ignore it. The An-22 will not be in service for the time of the T-14 since the newest of them is of more than 40 years old and as the article explained, are rarely used even today (and in fact its role is being covered by other aircrafts without a formal replacement still).

From other topic:

GarryB wrote:

For other non combat roles like the air transport in no contested areas, I see well to take civil aircrafts and to adapt them for military use, when only minor changes are needed. In this case would be the aircrafts cited in the previous comment and it also applies for land transport in no contested areas. I also see well to help developing new aircrafts for a class where there is not a civil alternative, something more likely to happen with aircrafts of big size like the Il-214 or bigger.

Civilian cargo and military cargo are totally different... military cargo tends to use rear ramps for loading and unloading, while civilian cargo tends to be side loaded in pallets.

Smaller aircraft are cheaper to buy and maintain and with enlarged fuel tanks can have extended range easily enough.

For small transport aircrafts and helicopters, if there is not an initiative for civil use it is a sign of warning. Also it is a sign of warning if the civil initiatives of the recent years in the same class failed. If it happens the entire class maybe in question for civil use despite to be more difficult to pack the loads than in the military transport.

In the past there were no economic sanctions that effected parts and support... and you simply can't use foreign transport in your military just because your civilian airlines use them.

The main point of introducing the Il-112 and Il-114 is to remove foreign transport types from the inventory. the fact that the digitisation of design and upgrade of systems and new efficient engines is all paid for by the military is just a bonus to civilian uses. Western civilian airlines get the same subsidy perk when their military buys a whole lot of aircraft and reduces the costs for the factory with large orders they would otherwise not get.

The changes in de doors/ramp of an aircraft are not mayor changes. This is why, most of the current, including all the most modern aircrafts used or ordered by the Russian Armed Forces on these non-combat roles, have versions for civil use. Only the aircrafts and helicopters for combat roles have not civil versions.

In fact, checking all the models (new) of the last 25 years in Russia, between all the relatively succesful models for non combat roles the alone without orders from the Russian Armed Forces is the Su-Superjet-100. And between all the models without a relative success, only a few received orders from the Russian Armed Forces (An-148 and An-140).

There is a clear trend that I expect to continue with the new models that are reaching the production level. There is a clear relation between military and civil markets for aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles. Of course the orders of the Russian Armed Forces help in a success, but the success in aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles comes not only from orders of the Russian Armed Forces. This is why I think that the lack of a civil initiative and demand in some class (by size) would be a warning sign also for a military use. If the civil sector is not demanding sufficiently aircrafts of some sizes, the entire class can be in question, and the Russian Armed Forces need to think if it is necessary for them to have aircrafts of the less demanded sizes, taking into account that it is easier to pack the military loads than the civil loads, as explained in previous comments of this topic.

Also for aircrafts and helicopters of mid or small size, the lack of interest of foreign armed forces for aircrafts or helicopters of some class can be also a warning sign about the entire class.

Not every aircraft or helicopter need to be replaced always by exact twin models. The current main battle tanks are significantly bigger than the succesful T-34.

The changes in de doors/ramp of an aircraft are not mayor changes. This is why, most of the current, including all the most modern aircrafts used or ordered by the Russian Armed Forces on these non-combat roles, have versions for civil use. Only the aircrafts and helicopters for combat roles have not civil versions.

Structurally they are very significant changes.

The Russian transport aircraft in service were developed in Soviet times and their development was driven by military requirements... not civil ones.

In fact, checking all the models (new) of the last 25 years in Russia, between all the relatively succesful models for non combat roles the alone without orders from the Russian Armed Forces is the Su-Superjet-100. And between all the models without a relative success, only a few received orders from the Russian Armed Forces (An-148, An-140 and Ka-226).

A period of no money and the restructuring of an enormous Soviet force down to a much smaller Russian force is not a period to be learning anything from... apart from the fact that over the last 25 years Russia didn't buy much military equipment... that is why over the next 10-15 years they are restocking with new and upgraded kit.

There is a clear trend that I expect to continue with the new models that are reaching the production level. There is a clear relation between military and civil markets for aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles. Of course the orders of the Russian Armed Forces help in a success, but the success in aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles comes not only from orders of the Russian Armed Forces. This is why I think that the lack of a civil initiative and demand in some class (by size) would be a warning sign also for a military use.

Sorry but your logic is wrong... you can't use the 9 months before a child is born with regards to the amount of quality sleep a mother and a father get as any sort of indication as to what sort of sleep they will get after the baby is born... that is just stupid.

The military buys things it NEEDS to do its job... it is not interested in what will sell on the open international civilian market... that is not their problem. If Armata weighs 60 tons in its heaviest version it will not buy planes with a 50 ton payload because there is a bigger international demand for aircraft with that payload capacity... WTF are they supposed to do take the turrets off for air transport?

If the civil sector is not demanding sufficiently aircrafts of some sizes, the entire class can be in question, and the Russian Armed Forces need to think if it is necessary for them to have aircrafts of the less demanded sizes, taking into account that it is easier to pack the military loads than the civil loads, as explained in previous comments of this topic.

The Military has specific loads it needs to move... with T- Series tanks in the 40-49 ton range do you think it is an accident that the Il-76 can carry a 52 ton payload in the upgraded older models and 60 tons in its new model?

The civilian market wont front up the cash needed to develop a whole transport plane... they just take what the military pays for and adapts them to their needs.

Also for aircrafts and helicopters of mid or small size, the lack of interest of foreign armed forces for aircrafts or helicopters of some class can be also a warning sign about the entire class.

Yes because if Fiji does not need 10 ton attack helos WTF would Russia need Mi-28Ns and Ka-52s for???

Not every aircraft or helicopter need to be replaced always by exact twin models. The current main battle tanks are significantly bigger than the succesful T-34.

As I said above the Russian military has just gone through a long period of downsizing with a lot of kit withdrawn or sold or scrapped... If they still have something in use and in service like An-2, An-24, An-26, An-32, Il-76, An-22, An-124, then you can probably bet your house they actually need them.

In fact they could use an An-225 as well for their space industry but did not have one in service.

The future plans might require different aircraft with different performances, but existing aircraft are being used now and most likely will need to be replaced... the Ukrainian ones first for obvious reasons.

And BTW the Il-476 is only just in production for the Russian military... considering the way the old models sold I suspect it will be very popular too. An Il-106 class aircraft would also likely sell very well just looking at the sales of the ridiculously expensive C-17 to date.