Il-106/PAK VTA Heavy transport

My take on it is as follows:

The artwork and model of that strange looking transport plane is just a concept from an engineer.
The actual transport plane has zero need to be supersonic, weird-looking, or need to look like some science fiction project from the year 2060.
So that was basically a single individuals concept, almost a form of fan art.

The announcement that the Il-106 will "look like the Il-76" just means it will have 4 engines and a high wing. Sensible for air lifters.

There are the following needs:
1.A new transport plane in the roughly 5-10 payload bracket. (An-26 and An-32 replacement)
2.A new transport plane in the roughly 20 ton payload bracket. (An-12 replacement)
3.A new transport plane in the roughly 35-50 ton bracket. (Il-76 replacement and Il-476 complement/eventual replacement)
4.A new heavy lifter in the roughly 80-100 ton and over bracket. (An-22 replacement and An-124 complement/eventual replacement)

1. Illyushin are working on the Il-112, ready in the next few years, will fly before 2020.
2. Illyushin are working on the Il-214, ready in the next few years, will fly before 2020.
3. Tupolev mooted their Tu-330, but this seems dead in the water. Perhaps the sensible option is to get Number 4 ready, the Il-106, then consider a  
   twin engined, cut-down version? I suspect it will be Illyushin in the end, in some shape or form, after looking at 1,2, and 4.
4. Illyushin are working on the Il-106.

It seems very apparent to me that Illyushin are the ones working on replacements for every single category of those, with the exception of number 3, Il-476 apart.
So they have actual projects either about to fly soon and are in actual construction, or in production, or almost finished the design phase.
How much interchangeability between the aircraft are not known, but it makes so much sense to keep it within one design house who specialise in transportation, even if the design bureaus are all part of UAC. Perhaps things like the cockpit, panels, controls etc, and various other subsystems will be leveraged off each other and be common across the designs.

Add to the fact that reports seem to indicate it is Illyushin who are also working on the new large long range airliner with China.
Any large specialised plane needed to transport space parts, ala the Atlant and Mriya, would probably be a heavily modified Il-106, as the few airframes needed means it would need to be a modified production design, just like the Atlant and Mriya were.

The above is why I had my doubts about that single image portraying an identical family with 2, 4, and 6 engines. It looked more like a "place-holder" image explaining a concept. Far better to design aircraft suited for their actual niche, and keep parts commonality as high as possible between them. This is where keeping the design of the various niches to one design bureau makes sense.

Well, that's the way I am interpreting things, reading what has been released, and what is actually on the go.
My 2c, and of course, I may be wrong...

Looking at the videos released of the An-124 transporting the S-400 to Syria, you would assume that any Russian complement/replacement of the An-124, such as potentially the Il-106, would look to try and keep the cargo hold dimensions as large as possible. Just look at the usefulness of the An-124 in transporting those S-400's so rapidly in a a time of crisis.

Edit:The brochure floating around on the initial Il-106 design from the 1990's showed a cargo hold of 34m x 6m x 4,6m (lengthxbreadthxheight).
The An-124 is 36m x 6,4m x 4,4m.

So it appears that the height component is good, which is a problem a lot of times when loading outsize cargo. Look at the video and pics of the S-400 being transported right now to Syria for example.

I notice that the Il-106 specification has a v low runway length reguirement vs other planes - 1300m or so.

With reduced payloads most transports of Russian origin can operate from fairly rough short airstrips.

Of course this capability is lost at heavier weights, so while the newest Il-76 can carry payloads of 60 tons it would be operating with 20 ton payloads and reduced fuel to operate from a short airfield (ie like in the arctic). Of course now that they are building towns in the arctic and decent all year round runways of 3km or so length they should be able to operate at max weight or something near to it.

{obviously when they arrive they will have used much of their fuel weight which is a significant weight... most planes can't land if they have just taken off because the weight of almost full fuel and payload makes it dangerous no matter how much runway they have.)

Finally, some pics show the Il-106 with 2 largish engines and 2 smaller ones. I wonder if that will be the final format.

I hope not... having an engine mix just complicates things... having two much more powerful engines is the most efficient solution.

It is funny because most of the engine power a transport needs is for takeoff and for the rest of the trip it would use a fairly moderate power setting for long range cruise... I am surprised they have never bothered with an afterburner for takeoff as the huge fan at the front just blows cold dense oxygen rich air... adding fuel and burning would increase thrust greatly though it would make takeoff noisy... it would mean a much less powerful engine could be used on a larger aircraft and the cruise power setting is much lower than the max setting. As an example the engines in the Il-76 have a top thrust of about 14 tons but for cruising would operate at about 2 tons thrust...

Re supersonic transport
I know it would be expensive. But check out the various Tupolev designs of the 70s and 80s. Now imagine what they could do now. The Tu-244 was a 6 seat seat and one aisle across plane. And the Tu-160 is gigantic (admittedly without a very wide fuselage). Its not that a supersonic cargo plane could not be done.

Yes it is that a decent cargo plane cannot be made supersonic.

It is called drag... to make a plane supersonic it needs to be very slim and low drag... unless the aircraft has TARDIS technology a slim narrow bodied aircraft is useless for transport... and more to the point supersonic speed means you fly straight and level and at medium or higher altitude... in other words dead meat to any 1950s technology SAM system.

[quot]Ultimately, I think its a number crunching exercise in part. Speedier and more flexible transport means less hardware is needed. And less permanent detachments in far flung areas. Russia itself is vast, and ofcourse the distance required to support any friends in need - Syria, Venezuela etc is even more vast.[/quote]

If you were paying attention to Syria you would know the vast majority of hardware went by boat.

Few would have expected the need for troops to the Crimea or Syria a few yrs back. Russia's requirements are being spread ever wider - the Arctic, Lat America, the Kurils, the M East. Its expensive to have permanent bases fully manned. So supersonic/high speed rapid response is the alternative.

If it is worth defending then it is worth basing troops and facilities there. There is no point basing all your military in Moscow and just fly supersonic cargo planes to drop them where they need to operate. They will operate much more effectively if they have a base of operations and established equipment and weapon stores and ammo dumps and radar and comms and transport and local infrastructure... and dare I say it... friends and family to defend.

40 tanks/ SAM systems despatched rapidly at high speed can possibly/probably do more than 400 despatched slowly in many situations.

To build up a force it is actually cheaper using ships and will always be that way... The very light forces you can send quickly can be useful in some situations... especially if they can operate with air power and or naval power.... but they would only be a holding blocking force till the main force has arrived...

I don't see any reason why it can't be an offshoot of the Tu160-2 plan. Maybe some could be a new supersonic airliner- ferrying wealthy businessmen and celebrities from Asia to Europe/the Americas - maybe even across the North Pole? Certain airlines like the idea of "trophy businesses" - a new supersonic plane would be an ideal one.

The main problem is that the Tu-160 design is full. You would not get one tank in the bomb bay area of the Tu-160 let alone 40 and if you put tanks in the body of the aircraft then the design gets much much heavier and you will have to take lots and lots of fuel out of the aircraft to fit that cargo and guess what... a supersonic plane that can carry one tank 1,000km is not much use.

Make the body bigger and then you will need 10 engines to get it supersonic and with no extra fuel the range just went down to 200km... which will also be the runway length.

QUESTION: Il-106 is the PAK-TA project???

Not really. The Il-106 was a 1990s project that was pretty much a replacement for the An-22.

the PAK TA is likely a future transport programme to replace the big antonovs (AN-22, An-124, An-225).

Actually the picture at the top of this page: http://defendingrussia.ru/a/novyj_tjazhelyj_transportnyj_samolet_pak_ta_poluchit_nazvanije_il106-3595/

Proves my point... the enormous size of the fuselage would be what you would need for a transport... but the huge holes in the sides for the ducted fans for STOL capability would use up all that internal volume that would be for cargo and fuel so not only would it be subsonic even though it has a large fuselage it would only have a small cargo bay making it next to useless anyway.

4.A new heavy lifter in the roughly 80-100 ton and over bracket. (An-22 replacement and An-124 complement/eventual replacement)

The problem with your logic is that no number of 80 ton payload aircraft can replace a 150 ton payload aircraft without modification. Just the same as no number of skate boards can replace a car.

The above is why I had my doubts about that single image portraying an identical family with 2, 4, and 6 engines. It looked more like a "place-holder" image explaining a concept. Far better to design aircraft suited for their actual niche, and keep parts commonality as high as possible between them.

Are you for real?

the Il-112, Il-214, Il-476 are all high winged aircraft with two or four engines... why do they need to be different designs?

It would make sense to have aircraft that are similar but scaled in size for different payload ranges... that makes design easier and simpler and cheaper. Making each aircraft totally different just so each design is not just a place holder is wasteful.

Trying to replicate what the Soviet military had in the late 1980s with new all Russian planes is simply not good enough... the Soviet military of the late 1980s didn't have four unified military vehicle families, nor did they have four military districts or the mobility requirements of the newer much smaller and expected to be much more mobile new Russian military.

This is where keeping the design of the various niches to one design bureau makes sense.

Not if they think they own the niche area and can be lazy.

Yes, I am for real.
Expressing my opinion on what is actually going on, based on actual programmes that are currently on the go, not some abstract concept mentioned once or twice.
My own preference, whether I think the 2/4/6 engine identical family is the best, which I might actually think, is not really relevant.

All will be revealed in good time, I suppose.
And I reckon that result will be more prosaic and practical than some expect.

I think the flying wing type transports look futuristic and cool, but I suspect the new aircraft will just look like scaled models of basically the An-124 with 2,4 and 6 engines for each model... very conservative but perfectly able to perform the tasks required...

GarryB wrote:I think the flying wing type transports look futuristic and cool, but I suspect the new aircraft will just look like scaled models of basically the An-124 with 2,4 and 6 engines for each model... very conservative but perfectly able to perform the tasks required...

Flying wing in general is bad solution for transports and brings many issues.

The only exception to these new aircraft being fairly conventional is potential work with china on those funny shaped civilian aircraft with non round fuselage shapes...

Nothing that hasn't been discussed already, but the article has a side profile that I haven't seen before.

Russia Revives Large Airlifter Design Work
by Vladimir Karnozov
- January 28, 2016, 9:06 AM

This is how the Il-106 looked when first revealed by the Ilyushin design bureau 25 years ago. (Photo: Ilyushin)
The Ilyushin design bureau has resumed work on a very large, four-engine airlifter that was first drafted in the late 1980s. The move comes after support for the Russian air force fleet of An-124 Ruslan heavy airlifters by the Antonov design bureau ended, as a result of the poor relations between Russia and Ukraine.

The Il-106 was originally meant to be a replacement for the aging An-22 turboprop heavy airlifter. Work commenced in 1987, and a draft design was completed in 1992, but funding shortages halted further progress.

But recently, Ilyushin general manager Sergei Velmozhkin told Russian TV that “the Il-106, a new airlifter being developed in Russia, shall be able to land on unpaved runways…this machine is going to be huge, [able to carry] a payload of 80 to 100 tons. Unlike previous designs, it shall be able to land on unprepared runways.” He said that the new aircraft was in the An-124 class.

Ilyushin general designer Nikolai Talikov also confirmed that a big airlifter is being developed. “We can speak about it seriously by 2022-2023” after design work is complete, he said.

The Il-106 was resumed after the Russian defense ministry requested the industry develop what it calls “Perspective Aviation Complex of Military Transport Aviation.” Subsequently, in late 2014/early 2015, United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) came up with a number of proposals, including the “Ermak project.” Details remained scarce until sources within Ilyushin began speaking of the Il-106 program resumption.

A scale model of the Il-106 appeared briefly at Ilyushin stands during airshows a quarter century ago. It revealed a classic ramp-airlifter design bearing resemblance to the Il-76 and An-124, but with winglets and a relatively wider and shorter fuselage. With a length of 58 meters (190 feet), and a wingspan of nearly 60 meters 197 feet], the Il-106 would have a maximum takeoff weight of 258 metric tons (569,000 pounds), and an empty weight of 135 metric tons (298,000 pounds). Cruise speed would be 820-850 km/h [442-460kt], and typical range would be 5,000 km (2,700nm). Field performance: takeoff and landing lengths between 1,400 and 1,550 meters (4,600 to 5,100 feet). The six-meter-wide cargo cabin (about 20 feet) would have a length of 34 meters (111.5 ft) and height of 4.6 meters (15 feet).

Power was to have come from four Nikolai Kuznetsov NK-92 ducted-fan engines each developing 18 metric tons of thrust (39,700 pounds)and developed for record-low fuel burn. Coupled with good lift qualities of the wing (area 370 sq m), these design elements were expected to delivermarkedly lower fuel burn on the Il-106 compared with the previous generation of Soviet airlifters.

Since neither the NK-92 nor its derivative NK-93 has been completed, the reborn Il-106 must have another engine. Most likely, it would be an up-rated version of the PD-14 engine from Aviadvigatel design house. The baseline PD-14 was developed for the Irkut MC-21 airliner, and is now on the brink of flight test on an Il-76 flying testbed.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-01-28/russia-revives-large-airlifter-design-work

We will take a step forward": the chief designer of PJSC "Il" on the replacement of "Ruslan" and the modernization of transport aviation of the Russian Federation

Nikolai Talikov, Chief Designer of Il, in an interview with RT, told about the company's plans to create new military transport planes. In particular, he reported on the ongoing development of the IL-106, which should be replaced in the An-124 troops "Ruslan". The brainchild of OKB them. Ilyushin will have a similar capacity. The first car can be assembled in the years 2025-2026. Talikov also announced the imminent completion of the projects of the Il-112V light transport aircraft and the short-range Il-114-300 transport aircraft.


Nikolai Dmitrievich, on the agenda is the issue of modernization of military transport aviation. It is she who in many respects provides mobility and expeditionary capabilities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. In the summer of this year, there were reports that Russia could create an analogue of the super-heavy An-124 Ruslan , but later they were denied . Will our industry pull a similar project and will there be a suitable engine for such an aircraft?

- Military transport aviation of Russia is in the sky every day and performs tasks, including abroad. Therefore, the issue of extending aircraft resources and creating new cars is so acute. An-124 play a huge role in the country's defense. It is no secret that they performed a large volume of cargo transportation to Syria. In this regard, the question arose of extending the resource of these aircraft. Given the reluctance of Ukraine to cooperate, our design bureau is engaged in the extension of the resource and the maintenance of the technical health of the An-124 fleet.

Indeed, the question of the re-establishment of the An-124 was repeatedly raised. We looked at this situation more broadly and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a new military transport aircraft. Such a plane, in our opinion, should be the IL-106. We worked on it for a long time. But in the 1990s and 2000s we carried out sluggish work.

Today IL-106 is recorded in our program, and we are starting to create it. The cargo cabin of the IL-106 will be the same dimension as the Ruslan. On the plane will be installed new engines, new avionics and everything else. The creation of the IL-106 will be a step forward in updating the military transport aviation of Russia.  

IL-106 will meet all modern requirements for the aerobatic flight complex, and for the resource, and for the transported goods. Thus, discussions about the need to recreate the An-124 ended. We are starting to develop the IL-106.

What engine will be installed on the IL-106?

To date, the United Engine Corporation has also begun work on our aircraft and creates engines of 24-26 tons.

Will the capacity of the IL-106 match the capabilities of "Ruslan"?

Yes. In normal operation, the IL-106 carrying capacity will be 80 tons, with an overload of about 110-120 tons.

When is it planned to implement the project IL-106?

The country demands from us that the IL-106 should appear in 2025-2026.



https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/588180-talikov-intervyu-aviaciya

dino00 wrote:We will take a step forward": the chief designer of PJSC "Il" on the replacement of "Ruslan" and the modernization of transport aviation of the Russian Federation

Nikolai Talikov, Chief Designer of Il, in an interview with RT, told about the company's plans to create new military transport planes. In particular, he reported on the ongoing development of the IL-106, which should be replaced in the An-124 troops "Ruslan". The brainchild of OKB them. Ilyushin will have a similar capacity. The first car can be assembled in the years 2025-2026. Talikov also announced the imminent completion of the projects of the Il-112V light transport aircraft and the short-range Il-114-300 transport aircraft.


Nikolai Dmitrievich, on the agenda is the issue of modernization of military transport aviation. It is she who in many respects provides mobility and expeditionary capabilities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. In the summer of this year, there were reports that Russia could create an analogue of the super-heavy An-124 Ruslan , but later they were denied . Will our industry pull a similar project and will there be a suitable engine for such an aircraft?

- Military transport aviation of Russia is in the sky every day and performs tasks, including abroad. Therefore, the issue of extending aircraft resources and creating new cars is so acute. An-124 play a huge role in the country's defense. It is no secret that they performed a large volume of cargo transportation to Syria. In this regard, the question arose of extending the resource of these aircraft. Given the reluctance of Ukraine to cooperate, our design bureau is engaged in the extension of the resource and the maintenance of the technical health of the An-124 fleet.

Indeed, the question of the re-establishment of the An-124 was repeatedly raised. We looked at this situation more broadly and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a new military transport aircraft. Such a plane, in our opinion, should be the IL-106. We worked on it for a long time. But in the 1990s and 2000s we carried out sluggish work.

Today IL-106 is recorded in our program, and we are starting to create it. The cargo cabin of the IL-106 will be the same dimension as the Ruslan. On the plane will be installed new engines, new avionics and everything else. The creation of the IL-106 will be a step forward in updating the military transport aviation of Russia.  

IL-106 will meet all modern requirements for the aerobatic flight complex, and for the resource, and for the transported goods. Thus, discussions about the need to recreate the An-124 ended. We are starting to develop the IL-106.

What engine will be installed on the IL-106?

To date, the United Engine Corporation has also begun work on our aircraft and creates engines of 24-26 tons.

Will the capacity of the IL-106 match the capabilities of "Ruslan"?

Yes. In normal operation, the IL-106 carrying capacity will be 80 tons, with an overload of about 110-120 tons.

When is it planned to implement the project IL-106?

The country demands from us that the IL-106 should appear in 2025-2026.



https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/588180-talikov-intervyu-aviaciya

Interesting article, thanks

24tons (PD-24?) thrust would be similar to An-124 engines (23,6 tons). I read in Wikipedia that the engines in the original Il-106 project had to be about 18tons thrust, so similar to the engines of the american C-17 (that has a payload of 77.5 tons).

It is possible that now they decided that the original capacity and characteristics of the il-106 were too similar to the modernised il-76 (il-476, 60 tons payload with 4x14.5 tons thrust engines) and they wanted something more (they could even do a streched version of the il-476 to cover the gap between the two aircrafts, if needed).

If so, later they could build a bigger version (similar idea of the An-225 with respect to An-124), with 4  PD-35 engines with a 200tons or more payload.

It could be interesting to see even a 6 engine version with six 35 tons thrust engines that would put the an-225 to shame.

Will the capacity of the IL-106 match the capabilities of "Ruslan"? Yes. In normal operation, the IL-106 carrying capacity will be 80 tons, with an overload of about 110-120 tons.

It's less by at least 30T:
An-124-100M-150 payload is 150,000 kg, or 150T.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-124_Ruslan#Specifications_(An-124-100M-150)

Time will tell if they'll be able to increase its payload.

Yeah, but most in service An-124s had a payload capacity of 120 tons.

Most importantly unless transporting specific items, most of the time they wont be operating at anything near max weights most of the time.

The Il-106 would primarily be replacing the An-22, which was used quite a bit as it was cheaper to operate than the An-124.

Unless you had a payload that couldn't be broken up that was over 80 tons it made sense to use a smaller aircraft for the job.

Sometimes however, the bigger aircraft is needed... it is better to have both and a choice.

With new engines they can keep their An-124s and also get new Il-106s to fill the gap between the 124s and the Il-476s.

The best of both worlds.

Another decent article from The Drive. Is it a rear only loader?

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25712/russia-is-looking-back-to-the-future-to-replace-its-giant-an-124-cargo-aircraft

Yeah, but most in service An-124s had a payload capacity of 120 tons.
Most importantly unless transporting specific items, most of the time they wont be operating at anything near max weights..
The Il-106 would primarily be replacing the An-22, which was used quite a bit as it was cheaper to operate than the An-124.

Even at 120T payload, the older An-124s r will still be able to lift 40T more than the normal 80T payload of the future IL-106.
It may be possible to develop a stretched variant to match it. They did it with the IL-76F for export to Jordan.
Now they want to replace not only the An-22s, but also augment/replace An-124s & older IL-76s with IL-106s:
..it now seems that the Russian Ministry of Defense may be pursuing an update of a decades-old indigenous design to eventually replace the Condors and possibly other aircraft as well. ..
The Russian Air Force could and would likely choose to replace some of its older IL-76s and the handful of AN-22s still in service with IL-106s as well. This would increase total production volume over time and lower unit costs. But where Moscow may really substantiate the program's cost is in potential export sales. //
Currently, there isn't a quad-jet cargo aircraft in production that is capable of carrying outsized loads outside of China. The C-17 recently ended its production and China's Y-20 transport has as much in common with the smaller IL-76 as the C-17 capability-wise and is still in its early teething phase. With this in mind, Russia is likely eyeing potential IL-106 export sales as a way to offset its development costs and possibly make money on the program overall down the line.
The big issue that hangs over every major Russian weapons program is funding, more specifically the chronic lack of it. Can Russia afford an IL-106? Quite honestly, it seems somewhat clear that they really can't afford to let the capability that the AN-124 provides whither. By building an intermediate-sized heavy-lift jet cargo aircraft, Russia could better justify the costs and even make a business opportunity case for it that is somewhat compelling. It would seem that IL-106 checks all these boxes.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25712/russia-is-looking-back-to-the-future-to-replace-its-giant-an-124-cargo-aircraft

Even at 120T payload, the older An-124s r will still be able to lift 40T more than the normal 80T payload of the future IL-106.

The Il-106 was intended to replace the An-22, not the An-124.

In the article above it states it can carry an 80 ton payload and presumably with reduced fuel weight 110-120kg payloads, which means it could do many of the jobs an An-124 could do... the point is that the An-22s are already gone and need replacement now... with new engines and KRET avionics they could keep operating the An-124 for many decades yet.

Plus there are An-124s around the world that could also use such upgrades to keep operating too...

Now they want to replace not only the An-22s, but also augment/replace An-124s & older IL-76s with IL-106s:

That does not make sense... older Il-76s have a 40 ton payload... why even think about augmenting or replacing with an 80 ton payload plane?

The best replacements for the Il-76s are Il-476s, Il-106s can replace the An-22s which are already gone and whose loads are currently presumably being carried by An-124s, or split down an carried in several Il-76s.

Having Il-106s will take pressure off the An-124s... but new engines for the An-124s will be a better solution in that area.

Ultimately when the new engine for the An-124s is ready they can build a family of aircraft that could be based on the Il-106 design... scaled up of course and with new more powerful engines... more powerful engines that might make the Il-106 a twin engined aircraft... the Il-206 replacement for the An-124 with four engines and an Il-406 with six engines for heavy external payloads.

Foreign buyers are more likely to buy Il-106 sized transport aircraft than something bigger, because it would be easier to fill and use efficiently... it is only occasionally when the really big loads come along that they will have problems.

Ironically the C-17 was developed for the NATO requirement to carry Abrams/Leopard 2 sized tanks... 65-80 tons... the Il-106 would be a perfect replacement that will likely be a fraction of the cost of a C-17...

Russia has begun to build an aircraft to replace the "Ruslan"

MOSCOW, December 29 - RIA News . A new Il-106 military transport aircraft to replace the An-124 Ruslan will be created in 2025–2026, Nikolai Talikov, chief designer of Il, said in an interview with RT .
"The country demands from us that the IL-106 should appear in the years 2025-2026," he said.

{}
According to him, the aircraft design appeared a long time ago, but in the 1990-2000s, "sluggish work" was carried out on the project.

{}

Earlier, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov said that the state program of armaments (calculated until 2027) prescribed research work on the creation of a super-heavy aircraft to replace the An-124 Ruslan.

{}

https://ria.ru/20181229/1548906143.html

looks like they might really make its first flight on time, depending what percentage of work has been done so far in erly 2000s

The best replacements for the Il-76s are Il-476s,..

IL-476s & dual use IL-478s r a stop gap, a few dozen of them won't replace the entire fleet of IL-76TD/MD, & that why many of them r in the pipeline for modernization to last a few decades more. But their cargo holds r too narrow, so the IL-106 is a compromise/alternative between a Y-20/C-17-like plane & the more expensive AN-124 follow on aka Slon or "Elephant"
They don't have luxury of having too many types of large cargo planes like in the USAF for 20T, 77T, & 120T.

The best replacements for the Il-76s are Il-476s,..

The IL-476s & dual use IL-478s r a stop gap, a few dozen of them won't replace the entire fleet of IL-76TD/MD, & that's also why many of them r in the pipeline for modernization to last a few decades more. But their cargo holds r too narrow, so the IL-106 is a compromise/alternative between a Y-20/C-17-like plane & the more expensive AN-124 follow on aka Slon, or "Elephant".
They don't have a luxury of having too many types of large cargo planes like in the USAF for 20-30T, 77-80T, & 120-150T.

Many of the existing IL76s could simply be upgraded and don't actually need to be replaced just yet.

The Il-76 is a popular and capable aircraft... with some modernisation and eventually new engines it could continue operations for quite a few decades to come.

If the Il-476 was a temporary stop gap aircraft then why base the A-100 and the Inflight refuelling Il-78 on them.

The Il-76 is a Russian plane... there are other planes with foreign parts that need to be replaced much more urgently like all the Antonovs... ironically except the An-2... the new composite version of that should be another valuable addition to the Russian military and civil aviation. Preferably with a Russian engine and propeller of course...

Many of the existing IL76s could simply be upgraded and don't actually need to be replaced just yet.

True, but they r not as versatile for outsize cargo & must be augmented by An-22/-124s.

The Il-76 is a popular and capable aircraft... with some modernization and eventually new engines it could continue operations for quite a few decades to come.

Like what they did with the An-26/-12/-22s.

If the Il-476 was a temporary stop gap aircraft then why base the A-100 and the Inflight refuelling Il-78 on them.

It wasn't a planned stop gap, but will turn out to be a few years later.
I doubt more of them will be ordered before the IL-106 takes off on its maiden flight.
For AWACS & tankers, that airframe is also not the ideal choice. Except the KC-130, the US & NATO AFs never adopted a pure 4 engine cargo plane for such roles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_KC-130

The Il-476 can carry an MBT. More "outsize" cargo is not needed.

Russia will have Il-112V (5t), Il-276 (20t), Il-476 (60t), Il-106 (80-100t) and mod. An-124 (150t), which will be replaced by a new plane later.

The western block never adopted a cargo plane because Boeing wanted to sell its passenger planes for that role. Also western AWACS can only be used from class 1 airfields while the russian ones can be used from frozen rough fields in siberia if needed.

Hole wrote:The Il-476 can carry an MBT. More "outsize" cargo is not needed.

Russia will have Il-112V (5t), Il-276 (20t), Il-476 (60t), Il-106 (80-100t) and mod. An-124 (150t), which will be replaced by a new plane later.

The western block never adopted a cargo plane because Boeing wanted to sell its passenger planes for that role. Also western AWACS can only be used from class 1 airfields while the russian ones can be used from frozen rough fields in siberia if needed.

From what I have read in some articles (do not know how reliable) Russia has about 25 An-124 but only a small parts of these are operative. Even if some of them were almost junk, Aviastar in Ulyanovsk has the capability to rebuild and modernise them and keep them operative for a long time, until a replacement is available, especially if (at a second stage) combining the modernisation with the new equipment (engines, avionics, etc) that is to be used in the new Il-106. It is only a matter a money to be dedicated to it.

Some 20 aircraft will be modernised, a few are already done.

Hole wrote:The Il-476 can carry an MBT. More "outsize" cargo is not needed.

Russia will have Il-112V (5t), Il-276 (20t), Il-476 (60t), Il-106 (80-100t) and mod. An-124 (150t), which will be replaced by a new plane later.

I believe that iskander, s400 and other missile systems are too big for the il-(4)76 and always transported with the An-124. If the Il-106 will be able to carry them it will cover a lot of the capabilities that now are only offered by the Ruslan.

According to Talikov, the IL-106 will have excellent characteristics. Since it comes to replace the "Ruslan", the engineers made the main cargo bay of virtually the same size. However, power plants will be specially created for the new development. Now engineers of the United Engine-Building Corporation (UEC) are engaged in this. ..the new engines will have about 24-26 tons...
https://politexpert.net/135443-na-zamenu-ruslanu-rossiya-delaet-shag-vperyod-k-sozdaniyu-novogo-il-106?utm_source=24smi.info&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=2019033&utm_term=2152

Russia will have Il-112V (5t), Il-276 (20t), Il-476 (60t), Il-106 (80-100t) and mod. An-124 (150t), which will be replaced by a new plane later.

The IL-276 & IL-106 r still paper planes. They may encounter developmental problems/delays &/ be less capable as planned & expected.

I believe that iskander, s400 and other missile systems are too big for the and always transported with the An-124.

Right. If the IL-76 was adequate, China would have copied it, instead of developing the wider Y-20.
Increased op tempo will put more wear & tear on the An-124s.