Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

first of all if a company has service in both civil and military equipment means that has more money to spend on R&D ......because on extra money come from civil market.....that means bigger salary for workers..... that is why i would put KRET and others to have civil department too
because russia minister of defence as others in the world cant afford to buy at a extra high cost the equipment just for the company who produce weapons ......

As Victor commented, it is possible to find some sinergies between the civil and the military markets for non-combat aircrafts and helicopters.

The comment of GarryB is wrong instead, and the long record of Russia designing aircrafts and helicopters prove it.

First of all the Russian President, that is the boss of the Russian Armed Forces, and the Russian government are responsible of both the military and the civil air transport. To solve it, they created decades ago, a series of Bureaus in charge of giving solutions to the needs of both at same time.

The design bureaus in charge of the solutions for the military air transport are the same in charge of the solutions for the civil air transport. And the aircrafts and helicopters they created have been used most of the times for both uses. For it, these aircrafts and helicopters are designed to meet the requirements of both military and civil sides. The designs of aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles like the air transpor in uncontested areas, share the most important chapters of the design (engines, main structure, external dimensions, aerodynamical balance,...).

In the case of the structure the main structure is made compatible for both military and civil use. Doing it this way, only minor changes are needed to change doors, windows or to include a ramp. This is possible if the synergies begin since the design process. It is so silly to argue against something that Russia is doing since at least the WWII. I'm sure Russia is working at same time civil and military requirements since decades to do aircrafts and helicopters compatible with both sides of the market, with only minor differences.

Other important question. The last 25 years have been years of low demand and low sales in overall terms, but this is why I was talking in my previous comment about a relative success or a relative lack of success in the aircrafts and helicopters of this age. Despite to be a bad time for new models, it is not possible to qualify as successful a model of aircraft or helicopter that reached not 50 units produced (plus prototypes) or that has an average production of less than 5 units per year of production in its first 10 years for sale in the market, unless it is a very big aircraft.

All the new aircrafts and helicopters designed for combat roles in the last 25 years reached this level of production, while the situation for the aircrafts and helicopters for non combat roles was exposed in my previous comment:

eehnie wrote: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).

Also some older models have continued in production these years with better sales and production than this level. The most clear example is the Mi-8, but even big aircrafts like the Tu-204/214 (in the market since 1990) reached this level of production revealing more clearly the lack of success of other new smaller aircrafts and helicopters.

Taking all this into account there is room to see differences in the success or the lack of success of the different modesl of the last 25 years. And we can conclude that there is a close relation between the success of new aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles, in the civil and military sides of the market. And even, we can see how the civil users expresed very low interest by the models that attracted not military orders, except in the case of the Su-Superjet100, being a little more tough than the Russian Armed Forces, that have been giving room to some models without appeal in the civil sector.

Then why not to take it into account and to take as a warning sign the lack of civil interest, initiative or demand about and aircraft, an helicopter and even an entire class by weight? Noting bad on it. Surely it would have helped to avoid the purchase for the Russian Armed Forces of some models with evident lack of success like the An-148 and the An-140, and would have been positive for the chance of the Su-Superjet100 in the Russian Armed Forces.

There are some strict, very strict needs that leaded to the purchase of these models with lack of success like GarryB is sugesting? There are really as strict needs that only can be solved by the An-148 and An-140?, or the needs of the Russian Armed Forces are more open and the work that these aircrafts and helicopters are doing would be solved also by other aircrafts of the same or of different weight class? I would say that the needs of the Russian Armed Forces can be solved also by other models of aircrafts and helicopters. The An-148 and An-140 are generic models for their weight class. Russia would be able to replace the An-148 and the An-140 easily. And surely shoud do it.

By the same way, the interest or lack of interest of foreing countries like those who buy habitually to Russia big amount of weapons of all types would be something to take into account. Despite the comment about Fiji, one example of what I was saying is the interest of India in the project of the Il-214. Foreign orders help in the success of a new aircraft or helicopter. Lack of interest means lack of future orders, and also can be considered as a warning sign for an aircraft, an helicopter or an entire class by weight. All this is basic management, despite what GarryB said and surely Russia is doing it in a decent number of cases. Russia has some specific needs that other countries can not reach but this is in the level of the biggest and most advanced weapons, not in the level of vehicles for non-combat roles. In fact all the aircrafts and helicopters designed for military and civil air transport are for sale for other countries for both military and civil use.

GarryB wrote:

As Victor commented, it is possible to find some sinergies between the civil and the military markets for non-combat aircrafts and helicopters.

Of course but when the military is paying the bill they get say in the specs of the aircraft and I can guarantee they wont compromise the design to make it appeal to the civilian market... it is up to the manufacturer to adapt the design.

Do not be wrong Garry, the military have not own funding surces, who pay the bills is the Russian government that is also in charge of the solutions for the civil air transport.

GarryB wrote:Even today the Mi-34 and Ansat and Ka-62 are all designed for the military first and foremost with potential for civilian versions later.

Surely you mean the Mi-38, well, all them are today for sale for civil use. When an helicopter is previewed to be in the civil markets, it affect to the design process since early stages. In this process the solution for military and civil requirements come at same time. It is a lot more expensive to do a design for military requirements only and to adapt it to civl use later, than to design compatible for both since the begin.

In earlier models like the Mi-2 and Mi-8, I do not know exactly if they were designed for military purposes only or not. In the case of being designs only to meet military requirements, maybe good luck, or maybe brilliant designs, but if both have been used for civil customers without changes, it is because their designs are meeting their requirements.

GarryB wrote:

Despite to be a bad time for new models, it is not possible to qualify as successful a model of aircraft or helicopter that reached not 50 units produced (plus prototypes) or that has an average production of less than 5 units per year of production in its first 10 years for sale in the market, unless it is a very big aircraft.

Because civilan use customers are cheap bastards and would rather buy off the shelf air buses and boeings than risk their own scarce money backing a new Russian design.

What Russia needs it military funding for new designs, so that when the design is paid for and airframes shipped to the military the civil aviation companies will buy civilian versions with a huge military subsidy. Worked for Boeing and worked for Airbus and worked for Ilusion and Tupolev amd antonov too when money was still being spent.

Only it is possible to say this if we consider that all the Russian aircrafts and helicopters offered for civil use in the last 25 years have been a failure. I do not think this is right. We can see cases of relative success as explained. When a design has been good enough, it has been also a success in relative terms.

The Russian model of research and development of new aircrafts and helicopters has public funding, is done by public companies, but at same time is a competitive model, and it is not rare to see different solutions for a class at same time. It is natural that some of them, the weakest designs, fail to the better designs. Some degree of lack of success is assured. This is another point where you tend to be very rigid. We also see it for non-combat land transport, in unarmoured or low armoured trucks, that is other competitive sector). It happened until now, and it will happen with future models of aircrafts and helicopters (a degree of lack of success) even if the overall situation of the Russian civil market improves. Not all the future models of aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles will succeed.

These would be the aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles that are in production and have been at least a relative success, or are in development and I expect a success (based mostly in the number of orders declared and other details). By weight class:

An-124

Il-96

Il-76/78/A-50
Il-62 (surely to be out of production fast)

Tu-204/214
Tu-154 (surely to be out of production fast)

Il-214
Su-Superjet100
Mi-26

An-72/74

An-24/26/30/32

Mi-38
Mi-8/...
Yak-130

Ka-60/62
Let L-410 (now of a Russian company)

Mi-Ansat
Ka-226
Yak-54/152

While many people can think that there is not a degree of standardization in the Russian Armed Forces, the reality is different. Between all the non-combat aircrafts and helicopters of the 5 smaller cathegories (An-72/74 or smaller) in active service, about a 55% would be Mi-8/..., about a 1% of Ka-226, about a 24% would be trainer aircrafts and helicopters, and about a 20% are non trainer aircrafts (almost all still in service from the Sovietic age). With the last group decreasing every year.

If I would need to say which helicopter can be the successor of the Mi-8, I would say the Mi-38, and if I would need to say which helicopter is the successor of the Mi-2 I would say the Mi-Ansat.

For the classes of smaller size, it seems to be some keys for a success in the last 25 years. It is to be a trainer aircraft (Yak-130, Yak-54/152) or helicopter (Mi-Ansat), it is to be a utility helicopter (Mi-38, Ka-60/62), or both (Mi-Ansat in fact). All the non-combat aircrafts of the size of the An-72/74 or smaller failed in the last 25 years, except the successful trainers. I do not expect it to change, unless a very big public effort, surely unnecessary, be done.

Between the aircrafts and helicopters of the Russian Armed Forces with a lack of success, the An-148 is in the cathegory of the An-72/74, and the An-140 is in the cathegory of the An-24/26/30/32.

To see where should be the firsts replacements in the Russian Armed Forces fleet, it is necessary to note that there is a good number of models that are out of production (not included in the previous list), but are still in active service in the Russian Armed Forces. It is likely that these models be replaced before. Following the same scheme by weight class we have:

-

Il-86/80
An-22

-

-

Tu-134
Il-18/20/22
An-10/12

-

-

-

-

L-39
Mi-2
An-2

With some older aircraft still in the reserve.

GarryB wrote:

All the non-combat aircrafts of the size of the An-72/74 or smaller failed in the last 25 years, except the successful trainers.

Not they did not. Before the Ukraine went retard there was no space or requirement for light transports... An-24, An-26, and An-32 did a very good job and there was no reason to replace them... now there is.

Taking into account that this comment is refered to the new models developed in the last 25 years, no-one of them reached the mentioned level to consider them a relative success. And the limit was generous. It is necessary to remember that these models have been also for sale in international markets, and have been offered for roles that the An-24/26/30/32 covered not strongly, like the civil transport of passengers, but they succeed not.

It is necessary to take into account that the success of every weight class is different. Some of them are significantly more demanded than others. Roughly, the most successful weight classes are the ones that allow to more models to have a relative success, the ones with more models included in the list. Also, the demand of them changes with the time. Some decline, others improve. As example, some years ago it were not trainer aircrafts of the weight class of the Mi-8, but now the Yak-130 succeed, and it is replacing lighter trainer aircrafts (basically the L-39). For some weight class the overall demand may decline until a level where there is not a chance of success for new models.

In overall terms I included in the first list by weight class, the proved successes (at least in relative terms) and the safe bets in the close future. With the time it is possible to see some success more, but surely only a few in the following years, because the strongest models (the included in the list by weight class) will absorb most of the demand of the own and foreign, civil and miliatry markets in the own class in the following years.

I agree, that the Antonovs will be replaced, but there are too many to do it in the short term. Surely the best is to begin by the newest, the best for sale, and the oldest. The newest are the mentioned as unsuccessful An-148 and An-140, that are only a few and seem easily replaceable. The oldest are included in the second list by weight class, and are, the An-10/12, the An-22 and the An-2.

PS: As GarryB commented, some contracts with very recent deliveries made to double the number of units produced of the Ka-226, that would be now in a level of relative success. According to it, I edited some of my previous comments. It leaves the An-148 and the An-140 as the alone non-combat aircrafts or helicopters of the last 25 years, present in the Russian Armed Forces, that reached not at least a relative success.

GarryB, to look at the success or lack of success in relative terms makes that we can not make to the conditions of the market responsible of the relative success or lack of success of the models.

The conditions of the markets have been the same for all the cases, but under them not all the models answered with the same degree of success or lack of success. Some succeed in relative terms and others, not. And there are differences between them that Russia need to find to do the right analysis about what can make successful to a model. Russia needs to go in more deep into the analysis, than the market conditions, to help future designs. I'm sure Russia is doing it, because it is basic management of the research and development. Surely the question is more about if we realize also of it.

Changing of issue, habitually the year of the end of production is a key parameter to see which models can be replaced first as whole models, because it marks the age of the youngest units of a model. It seems right to quote the list by weight class of models that are in service but out of production, including the year of end of the production in every case:

-

Il-86/80 (1997)
An-22 (1975)

-

-

Tu-134 (1989)
Il-18/20/22 (1985)
An-10/12 (1972)

-

-

-

-

L-39 (1999)
Mi-2 (1993)
An-2 (1993)

For replacements in the short-mid term I would expect to see units of the models that are out of production since longer time being replaced by models that are in production or reaching the production in the short-mid term and are safe bets. It basically means to compare both lists by weight class of my previous comment.

What I would expect:

An-10/12 (1972, 65 active and 55 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-214.
An-22 (1975, 5 active and 6 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-96 (with some changes of minor effect on the navigation for the version of civil transport) or by Il-76/78/A50.
Il-18/20/22 (1985, 48 active and 8 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-214 and maybe some unit of the Su-Superjet100.
Tu-134 (1989, 61 active and 107 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-214 and maybe some unit of the Su-Superjet100.

It will take some time to replace all them. I expect the An-22 the first to be totally replaced, because there are only a few. I do not expect the mentioned Il-106 to come fast enough for a replacement of the An-22.

About the replacement of the An-2 I would not rule out a replacement by helicopters. It seems likely to me. As example we can compare the specifications of the An-2 and the Ka-60/62.

For the An-2:

wikipedia wrote:General characteristics

Crew: 1–2
Capacity: 12 passengers
Length: 12.4 m (40 ft 8 in)
Wingspan: ** Upper wing: 18.2 m (59 ft 8 in)
Lower wing: 14.2 m (46 ft 7 in))
Height: 4.1 m (13 ft)
Wing area: 71.52 m² (769.8 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,300 kg (7,300 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (12,000 lb)
Useful load: 2,140 kg (4,700 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Shvetsov ASh-62IR 9-cylinder supercharged radial engine, 750 kW (1,000 hp)

Performance

Maximum speed: 258 km/h (139 kn, 160 mph)
Cruise speed: 190 km/h (100 kn, 120 mph)
Stall speed: ~50 km/h (26 knots, 30 mph)
Range: 845 km (456 nmi, 525 mi)
Service ceiling: 4,500 m (14,750 ft)
Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (700 ft/min)
Power/mass: 0.136 kW/kg (0.083 hp/lb)

For the Ka-60/62:

wikipedia wrote:General characteristics

Crew: 1-2
Capacity:
12-15 passengers (Ka-62)
14 infantry troops or 6 stretchers
Internal 2,000 kg (4,400 lb)
External 2,500 kg (5,500 lb)
Length: 15.60 m (51.2 ft)
Rotor diameter: 13.50 m (44.3 ft)
Height: 4.60 m (15.1 ft)
Disc area: 143.10 m² (1,540.3 sq ft)
Max. takeoff weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Turbomeca Ardiden 3G turboshaft, 1,776 shp (1,324 kW) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 308 km/h (191 mph; 166 kn)
Cruise speed: 290 km/h (180 mph; 160 kn)
Range: 770 km (480 mi; 420 nmi) with main tanks
Service ceiling: 5,700 m (18,700 ft) operational, 3,300 m (10,800 ft) hover

eehnie wrote:
An-22 (1975, 5 active and 6 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-96 (with some changes of minor effect on the navigation for the version of civil transport) or by Il-76/78/A50.

Again, the An-22 will not be replaced by the Il-96 for the reasons explained previously.

GarryB wrote:

GarryB, to look at the success or lack of success in relative terms makes that we can not make to the conditions of the market responsible of the relative success or lack of success of the models.

You cant ignore the situation... no aircraft can thrive in a market where there is no demand... no matter how good it might be.

It is a reflection of that market, not the aircraft however.

It is not to ignore the situation. For a success the question it is not to be good or bad in absolute terms, it is more about to be the best (and the best can be good or can be bad at same time). Good products can be unsuccessful in bad environments, but also good environments, if they are others better in the competence. When we talk about relative success or lack of success we are not saying that the less successful are bad. Maybe bad or maybe godd, and surely they are good aircrafts and helicopters reaching not a relative success, but I said nothing about it.

GarryB wrote:

An-22 (1975, 5 active and 6 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-96 (with some changes of minor effect on the navigation for the version of civil transport) or by Il-76/78/A50.

If the Il-76 in any version including the l-476 could replace the An-22 it already would have.

I suspect the An-22 will be replaced by Il-106 or the smallest Ermak model (two engined).

It will take some time to replace all them. I expect the An-22 the first to be totally replaced, because there are only a few. I do not expect the mentioned Il-106 to come fast enough for a replacement of the An-22.

I can see the An-22 leaving service first but there is no replacement foreseeable as the Il-106 and Ermak twin will take time to get into production.

I personally prefer the Ermak concept as as you say there is not a need for enormous numbers, so a modular design that can be used for other roles (heavy and super heavy) make sense to keep costs down.

The number of An-22 in service was not as low always. The replacement of the model has been done progressively in the last 20 years approximately with about 45 units retired. I expect not that new models can come before the replacement of this aircraft be finished (even 2 of the 6 units in the reserve are today in museums).

If we can talk about a replacement, the aircraft that has been replacing the An-22 has been the Il-76, the alone of the big aircrafts ordered in the last years until very recently. Now some orders of the Il-96 have been done. Maybe not an exact replacement but both aircrafts, the Il-96 and the Il-76, would be the replacement of the An-22 at least in fact.

Il-96? The only aircraft that can replace today an An-22 is the An-124.

wilhelm wrote:

eehnie wrote:
An-22 (1975, 5 active and 6 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-96 (with some changes of minor effect on the navigation for the version of civil transport) or by Il-76/78/A50.

Again, the An-22 will not be replaced by the Il-96 for the reasons explained previously.

In the last 20 years about 45 units of the An-22 have been retired, and in the next 5? the remaining 11 (or 9) units will be retired. In the same period of time the Il-96 and the Il-76 are the alone big aircrafts that have been ordered and delivered.

You can call it like you want, but the fact is the fact.

Not big enough. The An-22 can carry twice the payload of an Il-76. Both have operational capabilities from short dirty runways that the Il-96 has not.
I repeat: the only aircraft like the An-22 (and more) for me is the An-124 (today).

eehnie wrote:

You can call it like you want, but the fact is the fact.

I've decided to not reply in length as i have already had to explain the difference between an aircraft designed as an airliner with a low mounted wing and undercarriage that passes through the lower fuselage, and a lightly stressed floor that is an integral subassembly of the fuselage, like the Il-96....versus a true airlifter such as the An-22 with it's highmounted wing, undercarriage in seperate bays outside the hold, reinforced floor and unobstructed ramp allowing access to an unobstructed cargo area.

So instead of covering the basics again, including demonstrating again the restricted space over the wing spar and undercarriage bays,...

I'll just ask you to tell me again about your plan and previous statement of being able to transport 2 Armata tanks via side loading hatches in the Il-96.
Thanks in advance, eehnie.

wilhelm wrote:

eehnie wrote:

You can call it like you want, but the fact is the fact.

I've decided to not reply in length as i have already had to explain the difference  between an aircraft designed as an airliner with a low mounted wing and undercarriage that passes through the lower fuselage, and a lightly stressed floor that is an integral subassembly of the fuselage, like the Il-96....versus a true airlifter such as the An-22 with it's highmounted wing, undercarriage in seperate bays outside the hold, reinforced floor and unobstructed ramp allowing access to an unobstructed cargo area.

So instead of covering the basics again, including demonstrating again the restricted space over the wing spar and undercarriage bays,...

I'll just ask you to tell me again about your plan and previous statement of being able to transport 2 Armata tanks via side loading hatches in the Il-96.
Thanks in advance, eehnie.

Thank you by distorting my words until the point to say that I said things that I said not.

If you want the basics about the replacement of the An-22, here you have a good part of the basics. You can do a basic track of every An-22 owned now or in the past by the Russian armed forces. Most of them have been retired:

http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-22

Which aricrafts replaced them since the begin or the retirements in 1997?

If no-one replaced them, what happended with the loads that they transported before? Are waiting to the true future replacement of the An-22?

Here most the rest of the basics. You can do the track of every unit of big non-combat aircrafts purchased by the Russian Armed Forces since 1997, except the recent orders of the Il-96, that surely will be included in some time:

http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-96 (not enough updated)
http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-76/78/A-50
http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-124 (the youngest unit of the Russian Armed Forces is from 1990, before the begin of the retirement of the An-22)
http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-62 (the youngest unit of the Russian Armed Forces is from 1992, before the begin of the retirement of the An-22)

eehnie wrote:Here most the rest of the basics. You can do the track of every unit of big non-combat aircrafts purchased by the Russian Armed Forces since 1997, except the recent orders of the Il-96, that surely will be included in some time:

http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-96 (not enough updated)

The list you quoted is perfectly up to date: we can discuss the fact that both 96101 and 96103 haven't been noted as "IL-96-400TZ" (but that's quite logical as works are underway) for the rest even the planes which are being built right now are mentionned in the list.

About the recents orders, nobody knows exactly which variant will be produced and in which numbers: so there's no point in mentionning them in a list as long as nothing is know about them...

And I can't agree more with wilhelm: you simply can't replace an An-22 with a "modified" Il-96... The Il-96 would be a great platform (even more with new engines) as a tanker, flying command post or AWACS but simply put it can't be used for oversized loads or heavy loads like an T-14 tank or a T-90MS AND that's logical: it hasn't been designed for such jobs.

eehnie wrote:

wilhelm wrote:

eehnie wrote:

You can call it like you want, but the fact is the fact.

I've decided to not reply in length as i have already had to explain the difference  between an aircraft designed as an airliner with a low mounted wing and undercarriage that passes through the lower fuselage, and a lightly stressed floor that is an integral subassembly of the fuselage, like the Il-96....versus a true airlifter such as the An-22 with it's highmounted wing, undercarriage in seperate bays outside the hold, reinforced floor and unobstructed ramp allowing access to an unobstructed cargo area.

So instead of covering the basics again, including demonstrating again the restricted space over the wing spar and undercarriage bays,...

I'll just ask you to tell me again about your plan and previous statement of being able to transport 2 Armata tanks via side loading hatches in the Il-96.
Thanks in advance, eehnie.

Thank you by distorting my words until the point to say that I said things that I said not.

I haven't distorted a single thing.
Not only have you claimed the Il-96 can replace the An-22, but you've said there is no reason to even develop the Il-106 to replace the An-22 because  the Il-96 can do the job. A statement you've made based entirely on the aircrafts size, but completely ignoring all the other fundamentals...

Here are your exact words from page 3 in the PAK-TA thread:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t3891p50-pak-ta-special-purpose-transport-aircraft

eehnie wrote:

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).

eehnie wrote: 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).

After I pointed out the design issues of using an Il-96 type airliner and the problem with it's low wing/undercarriage bay config:

eehnie wrote:

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).

So you want to put ramps on the side of the Il-96 at the airport, but not part of the plane, that allows the T-14 to get into the Il-96. Probably there will be ramps at the destination too...
How exactly are you going to get the T-14 into the Il-96 then? It is about 50% longer than the width of an Il-96, so maybe we can just bash a hole in the other side of the fuselage so that can fit, and so we can slowly reverse and forward the tank a few times without smashing into anything until we turn the corner?
By that stage of course, the T-14 will be parked on the runway again, having ground it's way through the floor and the bottom of the Il-96 fuselage.

Even assuming you can load a tank without competely destroying the aircraft, the weight of the Armata means only one could be lifted. That means either in front or behind the wing spar/centre of gravity. What do you think this will mean? Let me help you out....



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lksDISvCmNI

We can modify the Il-96 into a decent airlifter, but it won't be these "little" or "slight" modifications you easily speak about.

It will involve redesigning the fuselage to make the floor/fuselage interchange much stronger.
May as well lower the floor so that we can tie it into other substructures, maximise the cargo bay height, and allow access far more easily.
Seeing as we are redesigning the majority of the fuselage, we can go even further so that we can install a ramp at the back so that vehicles can drive into, or long items can be put straight into and out the cargo bay. We'll have to redesign the rear control surfaces to ensure they give good clearance to cargo loading.

The wings and undercarriage are near or at the centre of gravity, and are a bottleneck preventing large or heavy loads being placed there. That's why converted airliners use smaller palletised cargo able to be distributed evenly.
So let's redesign the wing and place it above the fuselage. At the same time, we can redesign the undercarriage so that it doesn't impinge into the cargo area.

So there we have it: An Ill-96 that has been redesigned into a proper airlifter able to carry decently sized loads. And all it took was changing the entire configuration of the aircraft, a newly designed fuselage, wings, and landing gear.

Now we need to give it a name....I know...let's call it the Il-106!

Dorfmeister wrote:

eehnie wrote:Here most the rest of the basics. You can do the track of every unit of big non-combat aircrafts purchased by the Russian Armed Forces since 1997, except the recent orders of the Il-96, that surely will be included in some time:

http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-96 (not enough updated)

The list you quoted is perfectly up to date: we can discuss the fact that both 96101 and 96103 haven't been noted as "IL-96-400TZ" (but that's quite logical as works are underway) for the rest even the planes which are being built right now are mentionned in the list.

About the recents orders, nobody knows exactly which variant will be produced and in which numbers: so there's no point in mentionning them in a list as long as nothing is know about them...

And I can't agree more with wilhelm: you simply can't replace an An-22 with a "modified" Il-96... The Il-96 would be a great platform (even more with new engines) as a tanker, flying command post or AWACS but simply put it can't be used for oversized loads or heavy loads like an T-14 tank or a T-90MS AND that's logical: it hasn't been designed for such jobs.

Reports of 2015 talk about 11 orders of Il-96 by the Russian ministery of Defense for different roles. Some used aircrafts modified, others totally new. There are reports of the fist deliveries. Some reports even give the reference of which will be the modified aircrafts (one example is the RA-96104) I see not all it reflected in the link, despite it the link is very good and this why I posted it.

The Il-96 was not designed to be a tanker, but it is now doing the work (with the first units delivered). What I said about the Il-96 in relation with a replacement of the the An-22 is that I would think twice before to rule out the Il-96. It has the right size, it has done the aerodynamical balance, it has the engines, it has the main structure, which is able to support even higher payload than the An-22, and the Il-106 is too far. With some changes, minor changes in overal terms (without changes in the engines, in the external dimenssions or in the main structure of the aircraft and its nodes), I would check the possibility of having a new version with a different cargo cabin and different distribution of doors more adapted to military loads, with the use if necessary of external ramps.  

The main question about a replacement like this of the An-22, is not in the features of the aircrafts. It is a lot easier than this. We are not talking about a future replacement, the replacement is being done. We need only to look at what has been done and at what is being done.

Who replaced the retired units of the An-22? Who is taking loads moved before by these aircrafts. It is as difficult to identify them? No. It is something happening before our eyes. The loads of the retired An-22 are not quiet waiting, are being moved by who replaced the retired units of the An-22. We need only to do the track to see that until now the Il-76 has been key in the replacement of the retired units of the An-22.

Who will replace the remaining units of the An-22? Who take the loads moved by these aircrafts. It is as difficult to identify them? No. New big aircrafts are being ordered, while some others are being retired. Oredered: Il-96 (modified) and Il-76/78/A-50. Retired: An-22 and Il-76/78/A-50. Nothing else because there are not changes in the fleets of An-124, Il-62 and Il-86/80, and new models of aircraft are too far to come.

Like the people can see in the quotes that you posted, you said false things distorting my words here:

wilhelm wrote:previous statement of being able to transport 2 Armata tanks via side loading hatches in the Il-96

eehnie wrote:The Il-96 has a payload of 92000 Kg, which means that is SURELY IS STILL NOT ENOUGH FOR 2 T-14

and here:

wilhelm wrote:but you've said there is no reason to even develop the Il-106 to replace the An-22 because  the Il-96 can do the job.

eehnie 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.

and you lied here:

wilhelm wrote:I haven't distorted a single thing.

Completely ridiculous, as your own quotes show. I didn't write them...you did. And I posted the link so people may read exactly what is in them at their leisure.

I now know why I didn't respond, and why a lot of others don't bother either, even after the various patient explanations concerning the different types of aircraft configurations.
Stupid Ilyushin with their delusions....Eehnie can do it faster with some light and basic modifications to an airliner to take the Armata.
And supersonic PAK TA?

There is no further point or benefit to this kind of discussion, so have a great time Eehnie.

wilhelm wrote:Completely ridiculous, as your own quotes show. I didn't write them...you did. And I posted the link so people may read exactly what is in them at their leisure.

I now know why I didn't respond, and why a lot of others don't bother either, even after the various patient explanations concerning the different types of aircraft configurations.
Stupid Ilyushin with their delusions....Eehnie can do it faster with some light and basic modifications to an airliner to take the Armata.
And supersonic PAK TA?

There is no further point or benefit to this kind of discussion, so have a great time Eehnie.

Your lies failed here, and nothing else to say... have the same luck in your next bid.