IL-76 Special-Mission Modifications

No one worries about fuel efficiency in war. Russia is blessed with a large domestic oil reserve. The fire power capacity of an IL-76 flying at lowest possible speed vs sending an SU-34 strike is vastly more efficient and more timely. Jet fighters are use a LOT of fuel.

The maximum takeoff weight of a current model Il76 is about 210 tons.

The cruise speed is not an accident... it is the most fuel efficient speed the plane can operate at, which for the Il-76 is about 720km/h

With a payload of only 20 tons and the other potential 40 tons (of 60 ton total payload capacity) being extra fuel it is likely carrying about 120-140 tons of fuel or more.

That means the Il-76 will burn 120 tons of fuel in an 11 hour flight... probably a bit more than that because I am being generous with this weight estimate of fuel.

An Su-34 cannot carry 120 tons of fuel... its total internal fuel capacity is 12 tons.

Fuel efficiency is of no concern during WWIII... ie a fight to the end.

For fighting in Syria or anywhere else where the enemy is not a first world country then value for money reduces the impact of the costs of the conflict.

Even if the Il-476 was cheaper to operate than the Su-34, it is a big plane... a smaller lighter aircraft would be even cheaper to operate, so an Il-276 would be cheaper to operate and still able to carry a useful 20 ton payload.

The thing is are you after low cost max payload.... a civil airliner would be best for that... replace the internal cabin with an automated bomb handling system that throws bombs sideways or out the rear. If you want long term loiter so bombs are always ready then you need capacity but also time on station... most large transports are probably more expensive than you might think.... I suggested an Air ship simply because time on station is no problem at all and bomb capacity should be pretty good.

For the Il-476 I would say AWACS and inflight refuelling and transport as well as fire fighting and cargo could be core capabilities but in intense conflicts where a lot of bombs are needed including bombs bigger than your average then a customised rack system fitted to the cabin like the inflight refuelling system and the fire fighting system makes sense but it really does not need to be a separate version.

Design a rack system that can be extended rearwards out the open rear door in flight to precision drop the bombs... a Gefest & T system optimised for transport aircraft could be a useful thing anyway.

You could fit the same system in an Airship, but obviously the ability to hover over the target area should make it a bit simpler...

Loiter time is not about efficiency (as defined as the km/ton) its about time on station. If the plane slows down to 350-400 KPH it can cruise around for much longer. The benefit being it can quickly deliver firepower. An SU-34 would have to be lauched and rush there to deliver, would take longer and have less persistance. Plus would need tanker support. You can also keep a tanker in orbit to support a flight of SU-34s but then you 10-12 aircrew, and much more expensive assets burning even more fuel.

Loiter time is not about efficiency (as defined as the km/ton) its about time on station.

No, but loiter time requires efficiency.

The Il-76 and its Il-476 was never designed to loiter for long periods over any battlefield... its purpose was to carry cargo of a specific weight range to a specific distance.

If the plane slows down to 350-400 KPH it can cruise around for much longer. The benefit being it can quickly deliver firepower. An SU-34 would have to be lauched and rush there to deliver, would take longer and have less persistance. Plus would need tanker support. You can also keep a tanker in orbit to support a flight of SU-34s but then you 10-12 aircrew, and much more expensive assets burning even more fuel.

In the case of flying much slower... that should improve time on station and perhaps even extend time on station, but it wont increase range or actually reduce total fuel burn... even if it meant it could fly for 16 hours it is still using a minimum ten times more fuel than an Su-34... and the flight crew is going to have to include a dedicated bomber crew that might include a navigator bomber and also crew in the back fitting or adjusting fuses.

In fact with its swing wings I would think the Su-24 would be better able to fly at low speed with a straight wing at medium altitude for long periods... but weighed down with a useful load of bombs its performance is not going to be good in terms of endurance and loiter time.

The problem is that size and weight is always going to count against endurance in a fixed wing aircraft... even flying slow you need to burn fuel to remain airborne.

Their HALE drones have flight ranges of 10,000km or more and are much slower than 700km/h in flight speed so by default they will spend long periods over the battlefield. But that is generally without a payload, but splitting the jobs should be acceptable... the watching component needs communication with the bombing component.

In comparison a transport plane with a bomb rack in the back might be useful during an operation but would not be efficient just flying around waiting for a target to present itself.... unless that target was an enormous mass of enemy troops massing up for a major attack.

I think a high altitude long endurance (HALE) drone can monitor the area for days at a time and find targets based on comms traffic as well as cell phone use and perhaps even the concentration of electronic devices... command can then determine what sort of targets they are dealing with and therefore whether then need a fast strike with an Su-24/34, which could be 2 x 250kg bombs or 2 x 500kg bombs, or if the targets are smaller and more spread out meaning 20 x 250kg bombs scattered around a point of aim might be better... or a basement target that needs a penetrating bomb of 1,500kgs to do the job.

They might be finding that after they release the bombs then traffic booms and lots of other targets become obvious but those bombs were all the Sus were carrying... a bit like lifting a plate or a rug and finding hundreds of cockroaches under it all scattering from the light... an Il-76 could get to the target area just as fast as a bomber but once there it might shut down two engines and fly at maybe 400km/h... its initial appearance will not scare the enemy, or use at night to support a special forces operation might mean it is not really known to the enemy at all.

The Il-76 has wing points that could be used to load say four targeting pods that could be used to determine the precise coordinates of the targets the aircraft is attacking or that ground forces are having trouble with... an Il-76 with an internal bomb rack could drop smaller bombs as needed to avoid friendly fire kills... some cheap glider kit with GLONASS guidance could be developed... with the low cost of simple small drones and cellphones with cameras and GLONASS I am sure they could develop glide kits for 5kg and 10kg bombs that could be passed target information by Wifi and then hand dropped out the rear of the aircraft... bigger bombs for other targets and you could use laser homing bombs so the troops on the ground can mark the things they want to go boom.

You could beam the views of the targeting pods to the ground forces and they can select bomb type and size and mark the targets themselves to minimise the risk of friendly fire.

Operating at low speed the aircraft could remain on station for 5-6 hours easily and carry bombs from 5kg to father of all bombs and anything in between.

Its size would allow enormous variety and choice in terms of attack options...

But as I am saying it is more like a Spooky type aircraft that supports special forces during attacks or missions than a replacement for a bomber as such and I don't think it would be a replacement for a drone or good for recon, but as a "gunship" support aircraft it would probably be valuable.

Obviously not as flashy and tracer rounds coming down in enormous numbers, but I am not sure how actually combat effective that would actually be.

There are several things that can be done to increase loiter time. For example idle 2 engines and fly as high as possible, maybe even flaps can be uses to fly higher at low speed not 100% sure, but I suspect they can do ok. It does not have to be super efficient as all you care about at this stage is time on station. Once an attack is called the plane can quickly move to its most efficient mode and deliver the bombs, then stand back to safer zone and loiter again.

Apologies if already posted. Video of IL-76 dropping practice dumb bombs and straffing ground targets with its tail gun. The IL-76 can carry up to 4 bombs (FAB-250) two on each wing



The P-50Ts training dumb bombs create both a flash and a smoke signature when they hit the ground. The Russian Ministry of Defense said that some of the bombing runs were meant to reflect tactics wherein Il-76MDs would use illumination or smoke bombs to mark landing zones or targets ahead of airborne operations or airstrikes. However, other bombing runs, as well as the strafing, was supposed to be practice for actually using the Il-76MDs to conduct their own strikes on hostile targets.

Other Soviet-era airlifters, including the An-26 twin-engine turboprop, can also be fitted with pylons for weapons, if desired.

In the early years of the fight against ISIS, the Iraqi Air Force was a particularly prolific user of its An-32 transport planes, a derivative of the An-26, as bombers. India has also modified a number of its An-32s to drop bombs, including via a system that personnel can install in the main cargo bay, which sends bombs falling out of the rear cargo ramp.

Nice.

Something similar has been posted but it was much lower altitude bombing.

The practise bombs they used seemed to launch flares to highlight where the bombs hit the ground.

You would think in for a penny in for a pound that MER would be used on each weapon pylon and 6 x 250kg bombs per pylon could be loaded to make a hit more likely by dropping more bombs on each target...

Perhaps the extra drag and weight would effect performance too much...

Those tail guns look rather effective... the shell impacts on the ground look nice and close together so fragments from the exploding rounds would form a shrapnel column exposed troops on the ground would struggle to evade.

I wonder if there is any internal frame for carrying bombs in a structure that can extend out the back of the aircraft past the jump ramp and just drop bombs directly from the rear cargo bay area... it would not need to be complicated and could certainly be made to hold a lot of bombs... I mean they roll out vehicles weighing more than 14 tons with VDV air drops...

GarryB wrote:Nice.

Something similar has been posted but it was much lower altitude bombing.

The practise bombs they used seemed to launch flares to highlight where the bombs hit the ground.

You would think in for a penny in for a pound that MER would be used on each weapon pylon and 6 x 250kg bombs per pylon could be loaded to make a hit more likely by dropping more bombs on each target...

Perhaps the extra drag and weight would effect performance too much...

Those tail guns look rather effective... the shell impacts on the ground look nice and close together so fragments from the exploding rounds would form a shrapnel column exposed troops on the ground would struggle to evade.

I wonder if there is any internal frame for carrying bombs in a structure that can extend out the back of the aircraft past the jump ramp and just drop bombs directly from the rear cargo bay area... it would not need to be complicated and could certainly be made to hold a lot of bombs... I mean they roll out vehicles weighing more than 14 tons with VDV air drops...

Not sure how much weight those wings can take but seems only 500kg per wing (X2 bomb mounts carrying 250kg each)

If India can create a structure for dropping bombs out the back I am sure Russia can do it with ease. As we both have mentioned in the past Gefest and T upgrade, dumb bombs in the cargo bay ready to drop, and u could still mount 4 laser guided 250kg bombs on the wings in case u need more accurate bombing. And if we say along with the structure Gefest and T systems, bombs on the wings and fully loaded chaff in the 23mm gun, and a president-S system or other EW jammer on board, I reckon u could get around 160 x 250kg dumb bombs (40,000), that's a pretty devastating payload to drop that's more than double to what Tu-22M can drop.

The weight on the wings might be more to do with aerodynamics and extra drag or weight at that point of the wing might effect lift performance...

I would think some sort of programme of developing modules that could be loaded into the Il-76 would be worth developing... something that could carry bombs and a similar thing for carrying fuel for an inflight refuelling capability that could also carry water for a fire fighting ability, as well as perhaps a troops carrying system.

That way it could be used for inflight refuelling, fire fighting, paratroop dropping, bombing as well as cargo carrying and vehicle dropping... and a half length system could be used on Il-276s as well...

I reckon u could get around 160 x 250kg dumb bombs (40,000), that's a pretty devastating payload to drop that's more than double to what Tu-22M can drop.

Exactly, and it is not just about weight... some times against an area target a 250kg bomb is a waste of energy and a couple of much smaller bombs would be more efficient... as long as they are well designed 10 x 2kg bombs can spread more fragments and be more effective at killing people than a single bomb of much greater weight.... troops in an open field, a cluster bomb is always more devastating than a bomb of equal weight... just because it spreads the explosion and fragments around much more efficiently..

So even 10 tons of bombs but 5kg or 10kg bombs dropped in large spread out volumes which conventional bombers would struggle with because the way normal bomb bays and weapon pylons work.

Conversely if you want to drop a couple of very heavy bombs like FAB-9000 or FAB-5000 then a transport aircraft could to that job too.

So what Ur saying u can have a cheap bomber on your hands, if you already own IL-76 or are planning to buy it you can pay alittle extra and have yourself a bomber if needed. I agree smaller bombs/bomblets or a one or two heavier bombs is brilliant idea as it gives u so much more versatility.

Of course u could even have s weapon mount that fire out of the rear when cabin doors are fully open, the mount could tilt the chosen weapon further so as the aircraft flies past the target u then have full view to engage, perhaps any of the following systems could be use depending on what you laying around:
D-30, 122mm (artillery)
KS-19 100mm (AA gun)
52-K 85mm (AA gun)
D-44 85mm (artillery)
D-48 85mm (anti tank gun)
Zis-3 76mm (artillery)
S-60 57mm, (AA gun)
61-K 37mm (AA gun)
2B9 Vaselik 82 mm automatic mortar
twin Gatling guns 12.7/14.5,
Gatling AGS system 40mm/57mm spitting out large hail of grenades on a wide area.

Any of the above could be used in direct fire role just use whatever u have for whatever threat u want to destroy. And you could still have bombs on the wings if needed.

The good thing about this type of system and weapon mount or the bomb structure is it's totally Modular so one day u could use it for dropping bombs, the next day for direct fire power, the next day back to cargo duties. And the beauty is it's cheap. And you could also fit president-S, IR jammer, Belarusian talisman, etc,

Colombia operate the AC-47T although they upgraded it with three GAU-19 .50 cal Gatling guns. The Basler BT-67 has a gunship version used by the Air Forces of Colombia. The Colombian gunships are equipped with a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) ball, enabling the aircraft to conduct effective nighttime missions.

Basler Turbo Conversions offered its BT-67 gunship with FLIR ball sensors and night-vision goggle (NVG) compatible cockpit to the Philippines on 12 October 2016.

The Basler BT-67 is a remanufactured and modified DC-3.

I have gone off the gunship idea, but any or all of those weapons on the back of a truck or mounted on an armoured vehicle would still be perfectly fine for 85% of the worlds militarys today as front line weapons.

A bomb dropped from 10km altitude leaves the aircraft safe from most enemy air defences... and none of those gun weapons could fire a more powerful round than a 100kg air delivered bomb... or certainly not a 250kg bomb.

A precision bomb aiming system could be incorporated into a transport plane simply because being able to precision deliver a bomb is not much different from precision delivering a small item on a parachute.

NOTE: VTA practicing bombing and cannon fire with their Il-76's, apparently was standard in the past but only restarted again in the past couple of years.


In the Pskov region, on the territory of the aviation regiment of military transport aviation, training camps with flight personnel for practical bombing and live firing from aviation cannons have been completed.

Crews stationed in the Tver, Pskov and Ivanovo regions carried out practical sorties for the combat use of bomb weapons and practiced firing from aft aircraft guns.

The transporters flew from the Kresty airfield in the Pskov region to the Kushalino training ground (Tver Region). During the flight, the crews worked out exits from the conditional zones of the enemy's air defense position and descent to extremely low altitudes.

The pilots carried out bombing from a height of 500 m. with practical P-50T bombs weighing 50 kg according to mock-ups of the conditional enemy aircraft located on the runway. The accuracy of the use of aviation bombs was ensured by the standard sighting and navigation complex of IL-76 aircraft.

Live firing was carried out at an altitude of 400 m . When the aircraft entered the "vertical" - the position of the aircraft in the air directly above the target, the shooter visually detected the target and fired from the aft aircraft gun GSH-23. The shooting was carried out on ground targets denoting a column of equipment of a conditional enemy on the march.

The pilots performed flights for combat use in the daytime. In total, more than 10 crews of military transport aviation took part in the flights.

https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12395267@egNews

Isos wrote:

https://us5.proxysite.com/process.php?d=wEZAj6ZdzWST9%2F3bo%2Bid5cT%2FTYUSpNda9rP61dITMvxPs7C3Q7kajPTD0TY0GMszAni5NrwYob6ZdRyCt95d9VaR3YY8XA%3D%3D&b=1

When there is bare bone Air Defense on ground you can send a Yak trainer to drop those bombs.

The modernized IL-76MD-90AE heavy transport aircraft was being advertised as being able to carry 60 tons of cargo. However, it's longer but the fuselage volume remains slim as the vanilla IL-76, so even T-72 tank will need 45 mins of special work to load. A wider volume body is better keeping in view radar sam telar tanks need to rush in a crisis.

October 15, 02:13

The source announced the possibility of carrying up to eight Molniya (lightning) UAVs by the Il-76MD-90 aircraft

MOSCOW, 15 October. /TASS/. The Il-76MD-90 military transport aircraft will be able to carry up to eight unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) of the Molniya air launch, and one fighter - up to three UAVs capable of hitting enemy targets and conducting reconnaissance. This was reported to TASS by a source in the military-industrial complex.

“Today, several options for the launch and use of Molniya drones are being considered - up to eight devices can be carried by Il-76MD-90 aircraft, up to three devices can be simultaneously placed on tactical aircraft, in addition, two devices can be suspended from heavy drones "Altius-RU" and "Thunder", - said the interlocutor of the agency.

He also noted that, according to the concept of using multi-purpose drones, "Molniya" will be able to solve the tasks of fire destruction of enemy targets, conducting aerial reconnaissance and performing other special tasks.

Earlier, a representative of the Kronstadt company, the developer of the drone, told TASS that the Molniya was optimized for use as part of a swarm of drones. The device has a constant exchange of data between UAVs. It is possible to change tasks for each member of the pack, the transfer of leadership roles and interchangeability. At the same time, thanks to artificial intelligence, the task is carried out by a group without constant communication with the carrier aircraft.

The light "Molniya" is created in addition to the towed drone "Grom". According to data from open sources, the wingspan of the UAV is about 1.2 m, the payload is 5-7 kg. "Molnii" can carry reconnaissance equipment, so it is predusmatrivaetsya shock modification - barrazhiruyushchy boepripas with combat part.



https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/16064613