Il-106/PAK VTA Heavy transport

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

It is no accident that the loads to large to fit into the Il-476 are also too heavy so it isn't actually a big problem...

The Il-106 was developed to replace the An-22, but the problem of replacing the An-124 is a catch 22 problem.

The biggest problem with the An-124 replacement is a new engine in that power range... but if you had a new Russian engine in that power range the easiest solution would be to fit it to existing An-124s and the problem is solved.


Make it a 26-30 ton thrust engine and you could probably make the Il-106 a twin engined aircraft with the An-124 using 4 engines and even better potential performance and engine commonality... which of course it never had with the An-22.

Another factor would be that this new engine could also be fitted to the Bear... four or even two engine Bears... imagine that... wouldn't be the same though...

It would not growl...

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

True, but these planes are also foreign...

I mean the US is just continuing on with their C-130s and C-5s which are nothing like new aircraft designs...

The An-12, An-22, and An-26 will be replaced by Il-276, Il-106, and Il-112/114 aircraft... over the next 5-10 years...

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

That just shows the difference between Russian and Soviet needs and western needs...

NATO and the US needs AWACS and tanker aircraft to take its colonial power to other countries so long range and low cost operations make ex civil airliners ideal.

For the Soviets/Russians the ability to operate almost anywhere from relatively rough or icy airstrips is more important...

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.

The point is that during the 1990s there was little requirement for air transport... it is the fastest but also the most expensive way to move forces... most countries move really large forces by ship.

For Russia in the near future its ability to move large forces around its own territory will be valuable and in demand... a demand that will increase with time.

As new transport types enter service things will get better and new capabilities might be realised... they could certainly build more An-124s if they needed, but a better solution would be a new unified family of aircraft that standardised parts and shapes... perhaps based on the Il-106... perhaps on a newer shape.

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...

Well, with the An-22s out of service the heavier and larger loads have to go by An-124s. Even if the load is 20 tons, if it wont fit into an Il-76 then it has to go by An-124... at the moment.

BTW the Il-276 has the same dimensions as the Il-476... just shorter and with fewer engines... which suggests there is no real problem with the size of the Il-76 at all.


Would be like complaining that the new ICBMs don't fit into the Il-476.... but at 200 tons it wouldn't be able to carry it anyway...

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

The Il-106 was pretty much ready for serial prototype production, and the experience of making the Il-476 would be useful in preparing development of the Il-276... which as the MTA programme has been going on for decades already...

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.

If the Il-76 was not adequate why did NATO use so many of them?

Another factor would be that this new engine could also be fitted to the Bear... four or even two engine Bears... imagine that... wouldn't be the same though...

Those jets will weigh more & consume more fuel, decreasing range.

..they could certainly build more An-124s if they needed,..

The articles posted correctly state that it's a more expensive & unaffordable option than building IL-106s.

BTW the Il-276 has the same dimensions as the Il-476... just shorter and with fewer engines... which suggests there is no real problem with the size of the Il-76 at all.

Not if the cargo is bulkier, longer & over 5 tons! For example, if a few big helicopters, TELs/OTVs/boats must be moved, it's better to have the Y-20s than IL-76s.

If the Il-76 was not adequate why did NATO use so many of them?

NATO used mostly the An-124s; it has enough C-5/-17s & commercial freighters for less demanding logistics. If it was so adequate, they would just stretch the IL-476 & add more powerful engines to make it = to the C-17 in payload, for a fraction of the cost of the IL-106.
The evidence has come a full circle: the IL-106s r to replace the An-124s!

Those jets will weigh more & consume more fuel, decreasing range.

Why would you assume that?

The turboprops are rather fuel efficient, but with large turbofans I think it would be interesting.

Needless to say the new fuel efficient jet engines replacing the engines on the An-124 should improve performance and be more fuel efficient... that should go without saying because engines from that period are not super fuel efficient so a modern high tech fuel efficient model should both increase thrust and reduce fuel burn.

With a Turboprop it is probably less clear cut, but using two engines instead of four should at the very least reduce the maintenance bill.

If you can standardise the engine design so it is used across a range of big aircraft types you will save money too, but for a bomber the peak times when you need high power is during takeoff and penetrating enemy airspace. With long range cruise missiles that means the peak engine power is needed only for take off at max weights... after you have climbed to operational altitude then you cruise to your launch position and launch and then fly home.

Having two engines instead of four reduces drag, and is a better solution as long as the two engines are powerful enough so that the aircraft is not made underpowered with the loss of two engines.

The articles posted correctly state that it's a more expensive & unaffordable option than building IL-106s.

But the Il-106 is a smaller lighter aircraft... of course building more An-124s would be more expensive, but they are also more capable and able to carry more further...

Not if the cargo is bulkier, longer & over 5 tons!

The Il-276 will have a payload capacity of 20-30 tons...

For example, if a few big helicopters, TELs/OTVs/boats must be moved, it's better to have the Y-20s than IL-76s.

Well obviously for bulky large objects needing to be moved a bigger aircraft makes more sense, but in the real world really big items normally move by ship anyway. And they have helicopters that can carry slung loads of all shapes and sizes...

NATO used mostly the An-124s; it has enough C-5/-17s & commercial freighters for less demanding logistics. If it was so adequate, they would just stretch the IL-476 & add more powerful engines to make it = to the C-17 in payload, for a fraction of the cost of the IL-106.

Did you check that or is that just opinion? Because for a long time during the 1990s they used Il-76s because the C-141s are crap, and the C-17 are absurdly expensive... and for smaller loads the C-5s are also too expensive... just like the An-124s are for smaller loads.

The evidence has come a full circle: the IL-106s r to replace the An-124s!

Perhaps it is an understanding thing... the Il-106s are to replace the An-22s, the An-124s are currently being used in that role right now, but are big and expensive to run for such payloads.

If all you have is a mini and a two ton capacity truck, when you need to shift a barbecue, you don't use the mini... it would be easier with a small van or ute, but if all you have is a truck and a small car you have to use the car.

You can say the new van is to replace the truck, but when you need to transport whatever it was you needed the truck for in the first place you wont try using the van, you will use the truck.

BTW even if you could fit an Iskander into an Il-76 transporter, you still need the command vehicle and other support vehicles too, so even if you could fit the TEL into one Il-76 it would need several aircraft to deploy a unit.

At 40 tons the Iskander TEL could easily fit in an An-124, but more importantly you could also fit some of the other vehicles from the unit... the data preparation vehicle, the command and staff vehicle, the transloader, and the life support vehicle and the maintenance and inspection vehicle... it is still not going to be all in one plane as the transloader will be the same weight as the TEL...

With the Il-106 you could probably get the TEL and transloader into one load, while a second aircraft could probably take the other four trucks as they are smaller and lighter... in fact the other four trucks would probably fit into an Il-476...

The turboprops are rather fuel efficient, but with large turbofans I think it would be interesting.

They r happy with modernized props & engines on Bears. The USAF is re-engining its B-52s with 8 more efficient different engines instead of 4 heavier 1s that would need different pylons & reworked wings.

The Il-276 will have a payload capacity of 20-30 tons...

My bad, I mixed it with the IL-112. But still, there r other types of loads these future workhorses will be needed for, along with all remaining & newly built IL-76/-78s.

If turboprops are so fuel efficient and cannot be replaced by high bypass jet engines... where are all the turboprop powered airliners?

The only ones I know of a short range light transports that don't operate at very high altitudes or at very high speeds...

Il-112 and Il-114 and C-130 and An-12 all use turboprop engines... but one of the criticisms of the Herc is that it is slow.

Now the enormous and very powerful engines in the Bear mean it is not slow, but when operating "fast" it burns fuel at a high rate and is not so fuel efficient any more.

With turbofan engines I suspect it could be a little faster, lighter and with less drag...

Please note I am not a fan of getting rid of engines normally... I think the MiG-29 is better with two engines than it would be with just one, but that is because the two engines give the aircraft more power than one would, and two engines with TVC offer differential thrust to allow exceptional flight control even in a super stall...

But in this case with a bomber... but most importantly because big very power engines are being developed for subsonic large aircraft (transport and the Tu-160M2 and a variant that is likely a higher bypass turbofan for the subsonic flying wing PAK DA) then it would make sense to adapt all your Tupolev bombers, new and old to use a variant of the same powerful engine...

The NK-32 for the Backfire and Blackjack, and the core of the NK-23 in the PD-35 for the PAK DA and Tu-95 as well as An-124 and Il-106...

Of course they could always revive the engines intended for the Il-106... from memory its engines had impressive performance... astounding for the time, and probably even very good for today... further engine development and technology and materials improvements might make them even better now.

If the B-52s also had turboprops, they too would be just modernized or replaced with more efficient 1s.
The Tu-95s & some Tu-142s r older than the B-52s & wont last past 2040; it doesn't make sense to fix/drastically improve something that's not broken & still "performs as advertised". Speed isn't as essential now, the range is; their ALCMs have the right speed to penetrate IAD.
They have many other & more important things to spend $ on.

It is not about improvement though that can be an added bonus... 30 years ago they had An-22s, Tu-142s and Tu-95s all using the engine... in the 1950s they had an airliner too... the Tu-114.

These days there is just the Bears using the engine, so it is not about improvement, it is about commonality.

Let me put it this way... they are investing dollars into new engines... why not put those new engines into anything that can use them?

The increased production will help the cost, and reduce the number of different engine types in the inventory.

It is not like the Bear is the only aircraft they make that needs a powerful engine with long range endurance and low fuel burn...

The Tu-114 was withdrawn from service because it appeared antiquated at a time when all western civil airliners were jets... of course a turboprop is a type of jet engine but the ignorant public don't realise that... they see propeller driven aircraft as being old technology... sadly.

Even the An-12 is going to be replaced by a twin jet in the form of the Il-276 if things go to plan.

The US still has the C-130 of course... but the Orion has been replaced with a jet too...

GarryB wrote:It is not about improvement though that can be an added bonus... 30 years ago they had An-22s, Tu-142s and Tu-95s all using the engine... in the 1950s they had an airliner too... the Tu-114.

These days there is just the Bears using the engine, so it is not about improvement, it is about commonality.

Let me put it this way... they are investing dollars into new engines... why not put those new engines into anything that can use them?

The increased production will help the cost, and reduce the number of different engine types in the inventory.

It is not like the Bear is the only aircraft they make that needs a powerful engine with long range endurance and low fuel burn...

The Tu-114 was withdrawn from service because it appeared antiquated at a time when all western civil airliners were jets... of course a turboprop is a type of jet engine but the ignorant public don't realise that... they see propeller driven aircraft as being old technology... sadly.

It is quite funny that several western jet engine manufacturers are trying since the nineties to study and introduce the open rotor turbofan (or propfan), as a further improvement of the jet engine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan

Actually the An-70 should have been the first real application of a modern propfan, but country 404 managed to disrupt also this project...

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

GarryB wrote:It is not about improvement though that can be an added bonus... 30 years ago they had An-22s, Tu-142s and Tu-95s all using the engine... in the 1950s they had an airliner too... the Tu-114.

These days there is just the Bears using the engine, so it is not about improvement, it is about commonality.

Let me put it this way... they are investing dollars into new engines... why not put those new engines into anything that can use them?

The increased production will help the cost, and reduce the number of different engine types in the inventory.

It is not like the Bear is the only aircraft they make that needs a powerful engine with long range endurance and low fuel burn...

The Tu-114 was withdrawn from service because it appeared antiquated at a time when all western civil airliners were jets... of course a turboprop is a type of jet engine but the ignorant public don't realise that... they see propeller driven aircraft as being old technology... sadly.

It is quite funny that several western jet engine manufacturers are trying since the nineties to study and introduce the open rotor turbofan (or propfan), as a further improvement of the jet engine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan

Actually the An-70 should have been the first real application of a modern propfan, but country 404 managed to disrupt also this project...

The Ivchenko-Progress/Motorsich D-27 propfan of the An-70 (and of the Yak-44) had a similar power (14000 shp) of the PD-14 derivative turboshaft that Russia is developing to replace the engine on the Mi-26 helicopter (that engine will be capable of 14500 shp, but flat rated at 11500 shp to match the Mi-26 gearbox).

As the actual fan of the D-27 (from Aerosila) and many other parts were designed and manufactured in Russia, probably Russia could without too many problems create a new and more modern Prop-fan engine of that class (also to help (re)start development and construction of aircrafts like Yak-44 or An-70 if the situation with Antonov and contry 404 changes).

I believe that an aircraft like the An-70 (47 tons of payload) would be a good complement to the transport fleet of Russia and could also be produced and used in parallel to the Il-76.

Such propfan engine (or an uprated version) could anyway be also used to replace the NK-12 of the Tu-95, in order to have more commonality between different classes of aircrafts.

These days there is just the Bears using the engine, so it is not about improvement, it is about commonality. ..
The Tu-114 was withdrawn from service because it appeared antiquated at a time when all western civil airliners were jets..

The An-22s that r still active use it too, besides some experimental ekranoplans. The Tu-114s were retired mostly due to excessive noise in the cabin & vibration. Otherwise they would've been used longer on domestic routes, later taken over by the IL-62s.

I believe that an aircraft like the An-70 (47 tons of payload) would be a good complement to the transport fleet of Russia and could also be produced and used in parallel to the Il-76.

Or they could develop 4 & 2 jet powered versions, like the An-77:
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/an_77.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70#Variants

But due to costs & legal issues with Antonov they chose to go with the IL-476/-276s.

"Super heavyweight" IL-106 replacement for "Ruslan"
It is planned that during normal operation the aircraft will transport 80 tons of cargo, and under special operating conditions it will be able to “lift” 110-120 tons. The cargo cabin of the IL-106 will be the same size as on the An-124 Ruslan. In addition to the new avionics, the aircraft will receive new engines of 24-26 tons, which are produced by the United Engine Corporation. The transporter is wanted to follow the normal aerodynamic configuration with a moderate sweep wing with vertical end surfaces. The aircraft will receive a front and rear cargo ramp, which will significantly speed up loading / unloading.


Design characteristics of IL-106: wing span - 58.5 m aircraft length - 57.6 m height - 19.9 m cargo cabin - 4 * 18000 kgf (4 * 176.52 kN), NK - 92. maximum take-off weight - 258,000 kg maximum load - 80,000 kg cruising speed - 820-850 km / h flight range from ANZ - 5000 km operational ceiling - 12100 m run -1550 m mileage -1400 m crew - 2 people.

https://naukatehnika.com/sverhtyazhi-il-106-zamena-ruslanu.html?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com
naukatehnika.com

Actually having a standard cargo of 80 tons but potentially up to 120 tons would be rather useful... perhaps the higher payload with the offloading of fuel, which could then be topped up again in flight.

The first model An-124s had a 120 ton payload, and having a cargo hold of similar size would allow similar cargoes to be carried, but most of the time smaller and lighter payloads will be carried, which means the 80 ton payload capacity would be closer to the actual payload carried most of the time... this aircraft would make more sense to be used for payloads too big to fit in an Il-476, or too heavy for its 60 ton capacity in the later models.

GarryB wrote:Actually having a standard cargo of 80 tons but potentially up to 120 tons would be rather useful... perhaps the higher payload with the offloading of fuel, which could then be topped up again in flight.

The first model An-124s had a 120 ton payload, and having a cargo hold of similar size would allow similar cargoes to be carried, but most of the time smaller and lighter payloads will be carried, which means the 80 ton payload capacity would be closer to the actual payload carried most of the time... this aircraft would make more sense to be used for payloads too big to fit in an Il-476, or too heavy for its 60 ton capacity in the later models.

Since they now plan for it to have engines with  24 or 26 tons of thrust (so more than the 23.6 tons thrust D18T on the An-124, while the original Il-106 was supposed to have engines with 18tons thrust and max payload 80tons) i believe it will have similar or better performances compared with the original An-124 (we can probably also expect a 15% improvement in fuel consumption for the new engines).

I can imagine that they will use the same new engines (PD-24 or PD-26) and new avionics also on the upgraded An-124.

So I  believe that as soon as the engines are available they will upgrade all the active or stored An-124 within the Russian Air Force, and for new build they will instead assemble Il-106.

Therefore the new Il-106 will not have almost anything in common with the original soviet project except the name, but will be a An-124 with the same size and slightly different external shape and modern wings, engine and internal systems.

The Slon will arrive a bit later and will instead be something quite bigger, having also 4 PD-35 and approaching An-225 capability.

Maybe will even see in the future a mega-slon with 6 PD-35!!

If needed, it could take up to 438:
Capacity: 88 passengers or the hold can take an additional 350 on a palletised seating system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-124_Ruslan#Specifications_(An-124-100M-150)

The Tu-95s & some Tu-142s r older than the B-52s & wont last past 2040;

Didn't read this properly at the time... it is totally wrong.

USAF B-52s were made in the 1950s and 1960s and maybe into the 1970s, but no later.

All in service Bears... Tu-95 and Tu-142 are built in the 1980s and 1990s and have the redesigned wing and reduced drag fuselage developed in the 1980s for the Tu-142.

The Tu-95s are called Tu-95s for the purposes of all the strategic agreements that involve them, but to all intents and purposes they are actually Tu-142 designs with improved wings and fuselages... and improved engines.

Most B-52s are older than the fathers of their pilots today...

Speed isn't as essential now, the range is; their ALCMs have the right speed to penetrate IAD.

I agree... no engine type could be added to make either aircraft supersonic, but an increase of 100km/h over a 16 hour flight is significant when you are flying 12,000km.

This is not about speed, it is about commonality of engines amongst Russian bombers and heavy transports.... it means they don't need to spend money improving 3 different engine types, it means spares and training can be simplified, and numbers of individual engine types increased and the elimination of odd engine types..

I believe that an aircraft like the An-70 (47 tons of payload) would be a good complement to the transport fleet of Russia and could also be produced and used in parallel to the Il-76.

It is exactly what the Russians wanted... specifically for the VDV as its lower flight speed made parachuting safer and easier, but I suspect that ship has sailed.

Such propfan engine (or an uprated version) could anyway be also used to replace the NK-12 of the Tu-95, in order to have more commonality between different classes of aircrafts.

If they had the An-70 in service, then I would totally agree, but because they have not it really does not make sense to introduce a new engine time... it wont effect performance enormously... it might extend range but reduce speed... and you would not use it on larger transports because it wont be fast enough.

The only reason to do it would be commonality with the An-70, so without the An-70 is becomes pointless.

The An-22s that r still active use it too, besides some experimental ekranoplans.

The An-22 is to be totally withdrawn from service... if it hasn't already it will be soon.

Bears are going to be around for another decade at least... until the PAK DA gets into serial production in numbers enough to replace the Bear...

Therefore the new Il-106 will not have almost anything in common with the original soviet project except the name, but will be a An-124 with the same size and slightly different external shape and modern wings, engine and internal systems.

No real surprise there... the Mi-28 Havok was accepted for service this century but its contents and systems only superficially resemble the Mi-28A of the late 1980s when it was presented to the public.

I would say that upgrades to the An-124 would also be influenced by the work done developing the Il-106, and the systems and equipment fitted are just further developments.

Getting brand new engines is not surprising either but you could hardly call the new engines An-124 engines, or they would not retrofit them to the An-124 too.

The Slon will arrive a bit later and will instead be something quite bigger, having also 4 PD-35 and approaching An-225 capability.

Maybe will even see in the future a mega-slon with 6 PD-35!!

Sounds like a good thing to me...

The Il-106 was supposed to be just a replacement for the An-22, but they are clearly making it bigger and able to carry heavier payloads for special situations... ie for shorter distances a heavier payload means not having to bring in an An-124 for the job.

The overlap offers flexibility...

An-124 is for equipment transfer not personnel. Thats the difference i think with Il-106 which is comparable with C-17

I think in that respect they are all pretty much the same... none of them are airliners with comfy seats in fixed aisles, but they can certainly carry people... whether just passengers or paratroopers that leave mid flight.

Very large aircraft often have a small cabin area at the front in the top of the fuselage in front of the wing behind the cockpit where normal passengers can sit in seats...

Yes it could but we haven't seen it in that role

There is 1st time for everything. The USAF C-5s were used to evacuate people from S. Vietnam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Babylift

I flew on C-5s twice in the passenger compartment, it has rear facing seats.
Once I also flew on the C-141; an entire cabin was fitted with rear facing seats, & the pane was full.

The An-22 is to be totally withdrawn from service... if it hasn't already it will be soon.

I doubt it. They can soldier on for another dozen or more years, saving a lot of $ on fuel. It has better payload & unrefueled range than the C-17, at fraction of the cost: Range: 5,000 km (2,700 nmi, 3,100 mi) with maximum [80T] payload, 10,950 km (5,905 nmi, 6,800 mi) with maximum fuel and 45,000 kg (99,200 lb) payload
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-22#Specifications_(An-22)

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1019115
http://www.boeing.com/defense/c-17-globemaster-iii/

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30685.pd

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/10/02/c-17-globemaster-iii-tactical-transport-aircraft/

GarryB wrote:

The Tu-95s & some Tu-142s r older than the B-52s & wont last past 2040;

USAF B-52s were made in the 1950s and 1960s and maybe into the 1970s, but no later.
.

The last B-52 was manufactured in 1962, so the youngest airframe is 57 years old.

George1 wrote:An-124 is for equipment transfer not personnel. Thats the difference i think with Il-106 which is comparable with C-17

The original soviet project of Il-106 was comparable with C-17 (similar max payload and engine thrust).

According to what we have read of the project, the new Il-106 will have engines with 30 to 45% more thrust than the C-17, bigger cargo hold (same size of An-124) and front and rear cargo doors.

wilhelm wrote:

GarryB wrote:

The Tu-95s & some Tu-142s r older than the B-52s & wont last past 2040;

USAF B-52s were made in the 1950s and 1960s and maybe into the 1970s, but no later.
.

The last B-52 was manufactured in 1962, so the youngest airframe is 57 years old.

How many times upgraded and repaired ?

How long have they been outside in the snow like tupolevs ?

B-52 are in much better condition than tupolevs. Get over it guys.

The last Tu-95 was produced in 1993; the last Tu-142 in 1994, so by 2040 they'll be 47 & 46 years old:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-142

But most of them r going to be at least the same age or older than the B-52s.

The Tu-95 has a resource of another 30–40 years of operation,..
The resource of the Tu-95MS and its engines is large. It is enough to fly another 15-20 years.
..according to a number of experts and officers of the Air Force, it will not be possible to completely replace the Tu-95MS "Bear" before 2030-2035 . Former Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, Army General Anatoly Kornukov believes that the Tu-95MSM will be operated more than the planned 10 years.
https://army-news.ru/2012/09/bombardirovshhik-tu-95ms-ostavili-na-sluzhbe/

How long have they been outside in the snow like tupolevs?

The B-52s r also in the elements most of the time- rain, humidity/moisture, & snow, at most of their current bases:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#Operators

Ground crews would remove any snow/ice buildup from them.
After 1991, they were used a lot more than the Bears.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#Gulf_War_and_later

But with Russia's climate & operating conditions being harsher, their wear & tear is about the same. At the end of the day, it's the quality of the maintenance that counts.

I doubt it. They can soldier on for another dozen or more years, saving a lot of $ on fuel. It has better payload & unrefueled range than the C-17, at fraction of the cost: Range: 5,000 km (2,700 nmi, 3,100 mi) with maximum [80T] payload, 10,950 km (5,905 nmi, 6,800 mi) with maximum fuel and 45,000 kg (99,200 lb) payload

I am not suggesting they are not a good or useful aircraft...  Also from Wiki:

As of December 2018, six An-22s were in service with the 76th Military Transport Air Squadron at Tver, with only three aircraft airworthy. They are planned to remain in service until 2033.

So they have three flying examples of six in service... doesn't sound like a useful force to me... would be totally uneconomical if there weren't Bears with the same engines...

Honestly... to me it sounds like they are keeping some on hand... likely using cannibalism to keep a few operational for special roles... the tail arrangement would probably allow a load on its back to be carried like the An-225 or the M4.... those big fuel tanks they carry for the space forces are big and bulky but when empty would not be very heavy...

The original soviet project of Il-106 was comparable with C-17 (similar max payload and engine thrust).

According to what we have read of the project, the new Il-106 will have engines with 30 to 45% more thrust than the C-17, bigger cargo hold (same size of An-124) and front and rear cargo doors.

AFAIK the Il-106 was always intended to fill the role of the An-22. Increasing the power of its engines would expand its capabilities beyond just replacing the An-22 alone, but also taking on some of the jobs that were slightly too big for the An-22 that previously needed an An-124.

Of course over their life times the An-22 has not really increased its performance because it has not gotten more powerful engines, while the An-124 has been improved allowing an increase from 120 ton payload to 150 ton payload max.

The improvement of the Il-106 to expand its performance into the An-124s payload range just makes it even more useful and will make the fleet more flexible.

You probably could have reduced the fuel load of the An-22 to increase its payload capacity for shorter trips, but they seem to be designing this into the new Il-106 design...

How many times upgraded and repaired ?

Repeatedly and constantly... they are not 1960s planes any more... except that the basic structure and the basic design actually is.

How long have they been outside in the snow like tupolevs ?

Actually I wouldn't go down that track... the US B-52s have had a rather active life operating in all sorts of places carrying heavy conventional payloads and being very active... they were the main reason the US was able to drop more bombs in SE asia than were dropped during WWII...

B-52 are in much better condition than tupolevs. Get over it guys.

No, they are not. The Tupolevs are much newer airframes that have a shitload less hours on the clock that have delivered less than a fraction of the weapons the B-52s have delivered over their life times... you are talking about a seasoned campaigner that has seen many of the wars the US has fought since the 1960s, dropped bombs on several continents... the youngest of which is 57 as mentioned... and you are comparing them to kids born in the 1980s and 1990s... that have been used in the last few years firing a dozen cruise missiles each at most at Syria.

Both the Tupolevs and the B-52s have been upgraded and have modern electronics... but the oldest Tu-95 in service would be built in the early 1980s... lets say 1980, and the youngest B-52 was built in 1962... 2019-1980= 39 year old veteran of Syria, compared with 2019-1962=57 year old veteran of Vietnam and Grenada and Desert Storm and Yugoslavia and Iraq and Afghanistan and who knows where else...

But most of them r going to be at least the same age or older than the B-52s.

The Tu-95 has a resource of another 30–40 years of operation,..
The resource of the Tu-95MS and its engines is large. It is enough to fly another 15-20 years.

Very simply they are Russian bombers and simply don't get the same level of use as US bombers.

The plan is for the PAK DA to replace the Bears and Backfires... it wont be in 2020 or 2025, but by 2035 I would say the Bears and Backfires would be extra to needs and retired even if they have a few more years in them.... possibly sooner.

The B-52s r also in the elements most of the time- rain, humidity/moisture, & snow, at most of their current bases:

They have also been stationed around the world from the middle east to se asia etc etc...

After 1991, they were used a lot more than the Bears.

Before 1991 they were used a lot more than the Bears... Vietnam? The record for the amount of bombs dropped is not held by any WWII bomber.... in Vietnam the US dropped more bombs than were dropped in WWII and the main carrier of bombs was the B-52... it is where the term carpet bombing came from isn't it?

But with Russia's climate & operating conditions being harsher, their wear & tear is about the same. At the end of the day, it's the quality of the maintenance that counts.

The normal air temperature at over 12,000m is minus 62 degrees C, so any aircraft... when they fly they get cold too... I would say the dust in deserts or the high humidity in some climates would do more damage than extreme cold.

They are planned to remain in service until 2033.

as I said, a dozen or more years!
Russia intends to reanimate the IL-106 project, which in the USSR won the state competition between the Ilyushin Design Bureau, Antonov Design Bureau and Tupolev Design Bureau for the development of a fundamentally new strategic operating plane that would replace the An-22 and Il-76.
And finally, in December 2018, Chief Designer of Il PJSC Nikolay Talikov said that the launch of the creation of a new aircraft was given. ..
“Today, the 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. The country demands from us that the IL-106 should appear in the years 2025-2026, ”he said. https://ukraina.ru/exclusive/20190118/1022361361.html

They have also been stationed around the world from the middle east to se asia etc etc..

In the UK, Guam, Diego Garcia, & Qatar:
Out of the more than 700 B-52s that were built between 1952 and 1962, just over 70 remain. https://www.afcent.af.mil/Units/379th-Air-Expeditionary-Wing/News/Display/Article/1402207/b-52-upgrade-arrives-in-the-middle-east/

The retired planes r stored in Arizona desert & used for parts; recently 1 was reactivated & flown out after the loss of 1 in the crash. They were not used in Grenada, but when not bombing any1, exercise a lot.
Bases in the RFE & North as well as in Central Russia have rainy, snowy & cold climates; several Bears crashed there since 1991.
If India maintained her Tu-142s as before, she could've kept them longer. They figured it would cost less to buyy & use the P-8s from the US.
Russia should & probably will get them back.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
[i]Russia intends to reanimate the IL-106 project, which in the USSR won the state competition between the Ilyushin Design Bureau, Antonov Design Bureau and Tupolev Design Bureau for the development of a fundamentally new strategic operating plane that would replace the An-22 and Il-76.
And finally, in December 2018, Chief Designer of Il PJSC Nikolay Talikov said that the launch of the creation of a new aircraft was given. ..
“Today, the 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 .

Hi Tsavo Lion, yeah the original soviet project was supposed to replace those, but the new Il-(4)76 will remain in service for a long time. I believe they were even talking about an enlonged version of il-76 with payload of 66 tons or more.

Russia intends to reanimate the IL-106 project, which in the USSR won the state competition between the Ilyushin Design Bureau, Antonov Design Bureau and Tupolev Design Bureau for the development of a fundamentally new strategic operating plane that would replace the An-22 and Il-76.

At the time the plan was to replace the 40 ton payload standard Il-76 with the 47 ton payload An-70... mainly for the VDV... because the An-70 could fly slower and was therefore easier to jump out of and drop by parachute various loads including vehicles.

For the rest of the military the loss of the Il-76 would be compensated for by having the Il-106 which would be faster than the An-70 and the An-22 and cover both payload ranges... remember it was intended for up to 80 tons just like the AN-22 with the engines it was developed with.

Today however, the AN-70 is gone as an option, and so the VDV are not so happy, but the Il-476 has increased the payload potential up to 62 tons in the latest model, so for the majority that is a huge improvement because previously and also under the previous plan that would have left them having to use the An-22 or the Il-106 for payloads over 40 tons or 47 tons respectively... now they can use the Il-476 which is faster than the An-70... most of the time that is a good thing.

With new more powerful engines the An-124 can move to rather heavier loads, the An-22 can be dropped from the inventory completely, the Il-106 can replace the An-22 and do some of the short distance heavy jobs the An-124 was doing, while the Il-476 continues in production... and the Il-276 replaces the An-12 and the Il-112V and Il-114 replace the An-26 and An-72, and the Baikal finally replaces the An-2...

With all Russian engines it improves performance and improves sanction proofing of the Russian air market and improves export prospects in the sense that they can control what they sell because they make it all.

Regarding my previous example using a car and a light truck... a better example would be a country wide enterprise equipped with cars (il-76) vans (An-22s), and trucks (An-124s). If you get rid of the vans and you keep getting jobs that require vans you are going to start losing money because you will either have to use several cars... which means tying up more cars you can't use for other jobs and also tying up two or more drivers for jobs that would only have taken one driver with a van. The alternative would be to use trucks, which cost more to run, so again you are losing money... even if you wait and add loads together so the trucks operate full...

If you never found you used vans then that would be OK, but the An-22s were widely and extensively used, but as their available numbers dwindled their jobs have been passed up to An-124s.

So having an Il-106 replacement that could carry some loads previously only trucks could carry is a huge step forward for them because it should be cheaper to buy and to operate... so reduce costs and free up the other platforms for jobs that suit them better.