Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

Turkey, Ukraine negotiate industry participation in An-188 co-production
They may not even bother with NATO standards anymore, given US-Turkey spat.
The first 20-ship batch will be assembled at the Antonov factory, with subsequent training of Saudi personnel to follow.
http://www.rusaviainsider.com/saudi-arabia-launch-antonov-132-series-production-2021/

https://www.unian.info/economics/10454391-ukrainian-saudi-an-132-targets-an-32-replacement-for-india-air-force-video.html

India may also order An-188s. Later, if relations improve or Kiev absorbed back, Russia may order some An-132s as well- not all An-26s must be replaced with Il-112s. Saudi Arabia may them sell some too, with spare parts.

GarryB wrote:So there are a few problems they need to iron out... no big deal... as long as they iron them out before production starts and not afterwards, when it is more expensive to make changes and fixes.

Saudi Arabia & Turkey will, to build An-132/188s.

Will the planes be made in the Ukraine or in Turkey and SA? If the latter then the Ukraine will only get royalties and not much actual production work... which is really what they need.

Antonov is practically not anymore an aircraft design firm. It is now just a cargo airline for An-124, similar to Volga Dnepr. They even have less airplanes and also older then the Ulyanovsk based Russian airline. The only advantage is that they have one An-225.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

GarryB wrote:So there are a few problems they need to iron out... no big deal... as long as they iron them out before production starts and not afterwards, when it is more expensive to make changes and fixes.

Saudi Arabia & Turkey will, to build An-132/188s.

Will the planes be made in the Ukraine or in Turkey and SA? If the latter then the Ukraine will only get royalties and not much actual production work... which is really what they need.

Antonov is practically not anymore an aircraft design firm. It is now just a cargo airline for An-124, similar to Volga Dnepr. They even have less airplanes and also older then  the Ulyanovsk based Russian airline. The only advantage is that they have one An-225.

Only real advantage Ukraine has is the value of the currency, on the floor. So exports are cheap.

An-225 is not big enough to sustain Ukrainian economy. An-188 even less.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Turkey, Ukraine negotiate industry participation in An-188 co-production
They may not even bother with NATO standards anymore, given US-Turkey spat.
The first 20-ship batch will be assembled at the Antonov factory, with subsequent training of Saudi personnel to follow.
http://www.rusaviainsider.com/saudi-arabia-launch-antonov-132-series-production-2021/

https://www.unian.info/economics/10454391-ukrainian-saudi-an-132-targets-an-32-replacement-for-india-air-force-video.html

India may also order An-188s. Later, if relations improve or Kiev absorbed back, Russia may order some An-132s as well- not all An-26s must be replaced with Il-112s. Saudi Arabia may them sell some too, with spare parts.

I do not know about An-132 (it is a not a new aircraft, anyway, just a modernisation of the soviet An-32)

Last year in may anyway Andrei Fialkovsky, Director of Progresstech-Ukraine (a subcontracting firm that works for Boeing and Tesla) commented that the project is currently suspended.

https://biz.liga.net/keysy/transport/interview/kreslo-dlya-maska-kak-ukrainskie-injenery-pomogayut-boeing-i-tesla

Andrei Fialkovsky, Director of Progresstech-Ukraine wrote:

New  An-132 project with Saudi Arabia has a perspective?


- I will be very happy if it is implemented. We participated in the tender for the design of the plant in Saudi Arabia. Now the project is suspended and the dates have been removed. If there is a re-tender, we will participate.

About the othet aircraft
Il-276 is much more "real" than the An-188. They are planning to equip it to old engines (the D-436) or to non existing engines  the AI-28, that the Zaporozhe based engine company has no chance of finish developing. Maybe they could sell the project to the chinese...

The An-188 is anyway based on the An-70 for which the russian side could claim half of the intellettual rights.

Anyway, they plan also a version with 4 cfm Leap engine (which they have almost twice the thrust of the d436, so it is quite strange claim, it is like comparing the engine of the sukhoi superjet with the engines of the MC-21).

They also say that it will have a payload of 50 tons.

In that case, if Turkey need a relatively heavy military cargo aircraft they would be much better off buying  Il-476...

Russia has no choice other than to make their aircraft as modular as possible …
as they don't have endless resources … or time
in fact no country does …. including the USA

testing is amazing … if you change 1 item multiplied by the next 4-5 stages
you end up with multitudes of permutations of possible outcomes ….
1x 2 x3 x4 x5 = …. heartache …. especially with electronics …
every single button on your control panel … is an unknown variable
ie … what happens if you press 2 buttons at the same time ?
you'd be surprised …. what actually happens …. because nobody else does either ….
because nobody "planned" for it …
I've been there …. many times …. you get the surprise of your life ….
what the computer decides to do ….

for sure I'd make a 2 engine IL-76 …. use the absolute max number of common components
to reduce testing variables …. and reduce operational spare parts requirements and training …
and no.1 …. definitely use the same electronics

same with PS-90 vs PD-14 ….. nobody in their right mind would launch an IL-276 with 2x PD-14s
….. you need to minimise the number of unknown variables at all times ….
get it flying on PS-90s …. and then do an IL-276B …. on PD-14s 2yrs later

anyway … who cares ? …. the Russians have plenty of cheap fuel … PD-14 can wait
your supposed fuel savings will vaporise … if your testing takes 3-4 yrs instead of 1-2

IL-276 looks a really good sensible project to me … and I'm a hard nosed "checkpoint approval " guy

me I'd fly 3-4 IL-76s with 2x PS90s and 2x PD14s to get serious mileage up on PD-14s on non civilian aircraft to help reduce the risk for the MC-21 airliner ….

a squadron in Ulyanovsk …. that just flies … and flies … and flies …. racking up thousands of kilometres …. using PD-14s
seems to me the IL-76 is a very important aircraft …. for military and commercial reasons

Different users have different requirements, but it makes sense to make variants of engines that are new rather than engines that are old except for upgrades.

Very simply the example you mention, the D-30, PS-90A, and PD-14 are basically very similar engines, each with their own advantages and features.

The D30 is reliable and in service but not the most fuel efficient or clean running engine available, but adding new features developed for newer engine designs there is scope to improve its performance in a few areas to make it still a useful engine.

On the Il-76 its main problem in the past for the VDV as a customer was it was too fast... the air buffet jumping out of an Il-76 was more than they would prefer, but it could carry all their equipment like armour etc.

The An-70 was a replacement though it was an odd duck but being a turboprop it could fly safely at lower flight speeds so it was easier and safer to jump out of and it meant than instead of being spread over 8-10km, the payload might be spread over 4-6km which means the units delivered could form back up and get moving much faster... but then the illegal US coup happened and the An-70 died a natural death because there are no other customers like the VDV in the west and even if there were they had the A-400M that they would have been forced to buy.

The main point is that for the VDV to have a turboprop transport of lower flight speed to deliver their troops and armour it is simply not worth developing a brand new aircraft completely from scratch AGAIN... especially as they would also need a suitable engine too, but as they are now putting the Il-476 into production it certainly makes sense to develop a model or variant with a turboprop engine that could perform the role the VDV want executed... it would basically mean developing a new turboprop or propfan variant of a new engine... I would say it makes sense to develop the newest engine available which would be the PD-14 in a turboprop or propfan variant.

The PS-90A offers better thrust, lower noise and emissions, and better fuel efficiency, but it is not cheap.

The PD-14 should offer even better performance but a propfan model might result in lower speed operation, which for most customers is not so useful on a strategic transport like an Il-476.

For a medium range transport like the Il-276, the lower speed and costs of a propfan might be appealing so a twin engined Il-276 with PD-14 based propfans might be interesting too, but certainly the VDV would prefer a larger heavier aircraft that can carry armour as well as troops for dropping.

Why not use Il-76s to drop armor & An-12s, Mi-6/8/17/38/26s to drop soldiers?
The Mi-6/26s could drop some armor too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-6#Design_and_development
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26#Design_and_development

Those heavy helos can be given IRPs & refueled by modified An-12s for added range.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p275-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#240133

eehnie wrote:Of course someone will face the consequences of wrong decisions, if the new is right.

Eehnie was right, again  

Alexey Rogozin resigned as the head of "Ilyushin"
Алексей Рогозин Фото: ТАСС, Марина Лысцева
Москва. 4 апреля. INTERFAX.RU
In addition, Rogozin has left a post of the Vice-President on transport aviation, United aircraft Corporation.

Truck wrote:https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p275-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#240133

eehnie wrote:Of course someone will face the consequences of wrong decisions, if the new is right.

Eehnie was right, again  

Alexey Rogozin resigned as the head of "Ilyushin"
Алексей Рогозин Фото: ТАСС, Марина Лысцева
Москва. 4 апреля. INTERFAX.RU
In addition, Rogozin has left a post of the Vice-President on transport aviation, United aircraft Corporation.

I'm sure Eehnie would be so proud of himself you for reminding us.

Why not use Il-76s to drop armor & An-12s, Mi-6/8/17/38/26s to drop soldiers?

The problem is flight speed spreading what is dropped over a long stretch of space... ideally you want your troops and vehicles landing as close together as possible in as small a space as possible, because it means the time between when they land and when they can move out as an effective force is less.

Another solution would be to drop troops inside their vehicles so when they land they just have to drop their parachutes and attachment equipment and drive off, but not sure how mature and fool proof that equipment is... I mean one paratroopers chute fails he has a reserve... but if the parachute system for a BMD-4 with 10 people on board fails... even just the rocket system on landing and you end up with paratroops with back injuries who wont really contribute to the fight...

Russia has loads of territory …. just ask Napoleon and Hitler
who cares about response times...

if I was a Russian general.... I'd encourage as many F-35s and "airborne assault" forces as possible to "invade"
… and close the door behind them …. have you people never heard of Zhukov ?

I can see I won't last long on this website ….

Gazputin wrote:Russia has loads of territory …. just ask Napoleon and Hitler
who cares about response times...

if I was a Russian general.... I'd encourage as many F-35s and "airborne assault" forces as possible to "invade"
… and close the door behind them …. have you people never heard of Zhukov ?

I can see I won't last long on this website ….

You are wrong on two thing here. Leting an invasion force inside your territory makes hundreds of thousand of dead on your side even million for couple of tens hundred militaries on the other side. Modern russia doesn't want that.

2nd is that russia will nuk anqy country trying to invade before they even start deploying on the border. Nuks chaned totally midern war. Russia can't lose any war against anyone. Worst scenario is a draw for them where all the world is destroyed.

The pincer strategy seems to work quite well even today. Just look at how Russia handled Georgian war with similar strategies
Syria now with Russian assistance and DNR/LNR against Ukraine. Even if the enemy force is superior, it seems to be a solid tactic continuously working.

miketheterrible wrote:The pincer strategy seems to work quite well even today.

On ground, in the air is dumb

Russia has loads of territory …. just ask Napoleon and Hitler
who cares about response times...

We are talking about different things.

A VDV force needs to be dropped into enemy territory in as compact an area as possible because until it forms up into a fighting force it is vulnerable to attack.

Having all the troops and equipment landing in a small area means they form up into a fighting force much faster and are better able to defend themselves, if local forces form up and try to attack them.

The VDV are the emergency service... fire brigade, police etc etc... they need to be fast and well equipped and well led.

if I was a Russian general.... I'd encourage as many F-35s and "airborne assault" forces as possible to "invade"
… and close the door behind them …. have you people never heard of Zhukov ?

I doubt NATO would attempt any airborne attacks on Russia... her air defence systems are just too strong.

I can see I won't last long on this website ….

You wont if you keep ignoring instructions from moderators like George1 in his post number 331 above, where he posted this request:

introduce yourself pls here:
https://www.russiadefence.net/f6-member-introductions-and-rules

2nd is that russia will nuk anqy country trying to invade before they even start deploying on the border. Nuks chaned totally midern war. Russia can't lose any war against anyone. Worst scenario is a draw for them where all the world is destroyed.

Well any airborne force sent by NATO behind Russian lines will most likely be trying to take out nuclear weapons capability or some strategic node that needs to be defeated to allow an attack... either way... you don't let them do it.

Russian space agency hopes new Il-96-500T aircraft will be created in promised timeframe
http://tass.com/science/1055212

https://topcor.ru/8092-il-gotovit-alternativu-an-124-ruslan.html

More relevant in the space forces section as they seem to want it to replace the An-225 for moving outsized loads like rockets and their components.

The MOD is supposed to get 6 of them. They could even make more & that will reduce the # of Il-106s which have the same 80T payload, the VTA would need.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The MOD is supposed to get 6 of them. They could even make more & that will reduce the # of Il-106s which have the same 80T payload, the VTA would need.

As far I understand, the needs are different. The VTA needs also a transport for heavy military equipment (including tanks, which are not that big but are a high concentrated load, etc) which could also, if needed, land in unprepared field. The new Il-106 will also have more poweful.engines (4x 24 tons takeoff thrust) and bigger max payload.

Roscosmos want the Il-96-500T as the long railway tunnel in central Russia area can't fit anything wider than around 3m
so the Angara upper stages and various nosecones won't fit through to get to Vostochny from the factories in west Russia

the standard Angara URM-1 single nozzle boosters fit …. as do Soyuz 2 boosters

and eventually the Soyuz-5 4 nozzle booster intended for the Super-heavy rocket as side boosters won't fit through either

those guys at Ilyushin have got a shitload of projects on their plates ….

They wont need an enormous number of these planes and that should mean they get quite a bit more use, which will make them worth making.

Previously they used retired bombers like the Myasishchev M4 that had their tails modified into H style tails so large cargoes carried on their backs didn't cause turbulence over the original tail surface.

I suspect using the same logic the quickest solution would be to get some Tu-95s that are still in good nick and convert them to the role... they would not need a lot of them.

This Il-96 design should go ahead because all round the world there are countries that need odd sized loads carried around the place.

The Il-106 is rather different as it would be a roll on roll off... land unload in the field and take off and return to base to collect more cargo, whereas loading and unloading of a rocket is a bit more of a procedure.... these rockets wont be driving off and going in to use...

I can't seem to load graphics onto this site …. anyway I have a PPT from UAC showing the length of the Soyuz-5 booster as being 41.5m long
will fit into an Il-96 …. which is around 65m long …. whereas the Tu-95 is too short at 46m

that tunnel I was talking about is the Severomuysky around 15 kms long and around 3.5-4m width
re need for the Il-96-500t to move the wider upper stages for Angara … from west Russia to Vostochny

An-124 has flat floor inside so they couldn't use that …..

and another graphic from UAC shows the Il-96-500t with extra vertical H type tails yes like Garry said
it shows it being loaded with a rocket booster and the nose hinging off to the side ….

and another image shows it kneeling down and a huge truck driving into it ….

my guess is they will make 4 of them at least ...

The H tail is because a traditional tail usually fails to work properly with increase turbulence over the airframe caused by large external objects on the aircrafts back.

If they redesign the nose and back area to increase the internal volume like the western Beluga type transport the change in aerodynamics would probably have the same effect as an external load and so again an H tail makes sense.

What difference does a flat floor make?

For a very long time during the cold war new model ICBMs that were revealed at various parades in Moscow had those rockets on trailers... including very big rockets.

Putting such rockets on trailers makes putting them on to an aircraft and taking it off much quicker and easier without compromising support for them because these things are fragile and are not generally designed to take side ways g forces.

There is no reason why a rocket sitting on the back of a Bear could not stick out front and out behind the aircraft that is carrying it.... but if the main rocket it will be carrying is going to be this big then it is not impossible to make a few other adjustments to the shape of the Bear when you change its tail arrangement... a fuselage plug in front of the wings and behind the wings would not be that hard at all.