Refuelling Tankers for RuAF

George1 wrote:Ilyushin-78M-90A (serial no.0201;bort no.78741) tanker aircraft prototype made its maiden flight on 19.01.18. Il-78M-90A took off from the Ulyanovsk-Vostochny Airport earlier today.The flight lasted 30 mins & commences the flight test phase.

It looks like it is more than just a refueling aircraft. It has equipement in the nose for detection and reco mission.

Russia marks maiden flight of Il-78M-90A tanker
http://www.janes.com/article/77387/russia-marks-maiden-flight-of-il-78m-90a-tanker

Since the IAF already operates Il-78s, India may order some:
With an eye on China, IAF sets out for a 3rd time to buy 6 tanker aircraft
http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/with-eye-on-china-iaf-sets-out-to-buy-6-tanker-aircraft-for-the-third-time-118012600574_1.html

IAF starts process for procuring six tanker aircraft
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/iaf-starts-process-for-procuring-six-tanker-aircraft/articleshow/62654532.cms

I can´t understand why the russian state doesn´t come up with a special program to build 20 Il-96-400 to keep the plant busy.

Hole wrote:I can´t understand why the russian state doesn´t come up with a special program to build 20 Il-96-400 to keep the plant busy.

Il-78M-90A is on the way, and money is not to be thrown around at this point in time. Hopefully new cargo-passenger variant will emerge in next few years, at least i was proposed.

They r busy with IL-476/8s. More of them may be ordered for MOD,etc. & for export. The new twin jet airliner jointly being developed with the PRC may also be modified & used as a tanker/transport.

George1 wrote:........

However, the IL-96-400TZ project was the victim of constantly changing and increasing demands of the VCS for this car. In 2016, taking into account the experience of the operation in Syria, the Ministry of Defense demanded that the IL-96-400TZ be converted by an airplane capable of delivering personnel as well as cargo containers. .....

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3186064.html

How about on-board casino, swimming pool and spa-resort while they are at it?

It's a tanker, it's supposed to carry fuel.

PapaDragon wrote:



How about on-board casino, swimming pool and spa-resort while they are at it?

It's a tanker, it's supposed to carry fuel.

Well they wanted to get from it what Boeing KC-46 does cargo-troop transport-tanker. Meanwhile they didnt want to invest money to develop such conversion system.

It's all about $: they can't afford both tankers that can't carry more than a few people & transports that carry only cargo & people. Even the USAF & EU tankers can carry both:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker#Design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_KC-10_Extender#Design_and_development
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A310_MRTT#Specifications_(A310_MRTT)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330_MRTT#Specifications

UAC announces Il-96 production targets until 2025
http://www.rusaviainsider.com/uac-announces-il-96-production-targets/
Russia to allocate US$22.5 million for the IL96-400M program
https://newsroom.aviator.aero/russia-to-allocate-us-22-5-million-for-the-il96-400m-program/
Ilyushin studies twin-engined version of Il-96
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ilyushin-studies-twin-engined-version-of-il-96-445788/

If it appears, perhaps a tanker/transport variant will also be offered.

Right now they have fixed amounts of funds and limits on what they can fund and what they cannot.

Lets face it, the Il-96 is a very underutilised aircraft and if they had nothing else on the books for the future for long range large capacity transport then they would probably go ahead with it as a tanker, but the facts are they have both new large plane plans but also new large engine plans.

When the new large powerful engine based on the NK-32 that is being developed for the PAK DA is ready they might decide that the PD-35 is perfectly suitable for the Il-96, and a whole family of An-22, An-124, and An-225 sized transport planes as well as a new wide bodied airliner family...

It is rather likely that eventually they will have a large tanker... which plane it is based upon and which engines it will use might be up in the air for half a decade because they really don't know what is going to work and what might need to be changed...

They might decide instead of making more Il-96s that the new design could be built in the Il-96 factories... hell it might even be an Il-96 but fitted with two huge ass engines instead of four...

What they are saying now is that an Il-96 in the form it is now is not suitable... and that is fine... it doesn't mean it wont be any good for anything else, just not so good as a tanker aircraft.

It is a large aircraft... I am sure they can find uses for it.

GarryB wrote:Right now they have fixed amounts of funds and limits on what they can fund and what they cannot.

Lets face it, the Il-96 is a very underutilised aircraft and if they had nothing else on the books for the future for long range large capacity transport then they would probably go ahead with it as a tanker, but the facts are they have both new large plane plans but also new large engine plans.

When the new large powerful engine based on the NK-32 that is being developed for the PAK DA is ready they might decide that the PD-35  is perfectly suitable for the Il-96, and a whole family of An-22, An-124, and An-225 sized transport planes as well as a new wide bodied airliner family...

It is rather likely that eventually they will have a large tanker... which plane it is based upon and which engines it will use might be up in the air for half a decade because they really don't know what is going to work and what might need to be changed...

They might decide instead of making more Il-96s that the new design could be built in the Il-96 factories... hell it might even be an Il-96 but fitted with two huge ass engines instead of four...

What they are saying now is that an Il-96 in the form it is now is not suitable... and that is fine... it doesn't mean it wont be any good for anything else, just not so good as a tanker aircraft.

It is a large aircraft... I am sure they can find uses for it.

Why would they fund this when they're about to fund the PAK-TA project? What they've done seems to fit par for the course, they stopped funding a stop gap measure and redirected funds towards developing superior from scratch design projects. By the time PAK-TA comes in to service, it could be fitted head-to-toe with photonic computers with all it's systems; computers which would be extremely powerful, extremely light weight, extreme resistance from ECM, and may be the harbinger for modular aircraft that could be put together like Lego blocks, quickly and efficiently with out issue.

Agreed, but I doubt the remaining ~12 AN-22s can be rengined with jets- wings must be redesigned & it's not worth it.
It's worth noting that some pure cargo IL-76s were converted to tankers & water bombers; it's also possible to convert them back to cargo transports. Having a common airframe saves a lot of $ & time in the long run. I'm sure some older IL-76s of all types could be converted to tankers, if need be.
OTH, I once flew on a USAF KC-10 tanker from Japan to Singapore; the plane had some 20-30 seats installed in the front  + had a few cargo pallets in the middle & back. I doubt they ever fly with passengers only. For that they had C-141s, C-9s (flew on them too, full of people), & other planes.

Maybe the defence ministry doesn´t have the funds, that´s why i said the state should put up some extra money. They buy Il-96 for the president and some agencies, but no money for a strategic tanker/transporter?

Why would they fund this when they're about to fund the PAK-TA project?

They want an inflight refuelling tanker that can also transport stuff when it is not being used as a tanker.

If they just wanted a transport bigger than an Il-78 then they would be looking at an An-124 instead of an Il-96.

A good inflight refuelling aircraft is an airliner, because it is optimised for long range low cost flight... being able to transport stuff when it is not refuelling planes is a bonus.

An An-124 or the 150 ton payload PAK TA plane is optimised for transport... that means it is fatter so it can take bulky funny shaped loads... that makes it less streamlined than an airliner like an Il-96 and it makes it burn more fuel per hour.

What they've done seems to fit par for the course, they stopped funding a stop gap measure and redirected funds towards developing superior from scratch design projects. By the time PAK-TA comes in to service, it could be fitted head-to-toe with photonic computers with all it's systems; computers which would be extremely powerful, extremely light weight, extreme resistance from ECM, and may be the harbinger for modular aircraft that could be put together like Lego blocks, quickly and efficiently with out issue.

Agree totally except that the designs they are funding are wide bodied airliners together with China, which would be ideal tankers due to their aerodynamic shape and low cost operation and long range with heavy payloads of either fuel or cargo.

It's worth noting that some pure cargo IL-76s were converted to tankers & water bombers; it's also possible to convert them back to cargo transports. Having a common airframe saves a lot of $ & time in the long run. I'm sure some older IL-76s of all types could be converted to tankers, if need be.

Il-76 is a good enough platform for having a few inflight refuelling tankers, but for a larger fleet the operational fuel costs start to build up and become an issue.

It makes more sense to use ex airliner aircraft or new airliners for the purpose due to their lower operating costs as fuel tankers. As transport aircraft they might not be as useful as a proper transport aircraft but the transport role is secondary.

They already have Il-78s for the job and if they need more they can make Il-478s if they want.. what they are looking at is an aircraft with much longer range and high flight speed with a much heavier payload of fuel... something that could fly to the north pole and top off strategic bombers there and then fly back to Russia... rather than topping off the bombers just after they take off.

The Il-96 was a good candidate because of is long flight range, low drag, and large capacity. A new long range wide bodied airliner would have all the same advantages but also perhaps longer range, lower drag, larger capacity etc etc... and going into full serial production that might continue for a decade or so.

The factories currently making Il-96s would be natural choices to make this new wide bodied airliner so they wont miss out.

Of course as I already speculated with new more powerful and more fuel efficient engines replacing the current four with more powerful and more efficient two engines might make the Il-96 a viable efficient aircraft anyway so they might restart production using slightly improved design and new materials etc.

Maybe the defence ministry doesn´t have the funds, that´s why i said the state should put up some extra money. They buy Il-96 for the president and some agencies, but no money for a strategic tanker/transporter?

Their main issue is that strategic tanker and strategic transport are going to be different aircraft... they are likely going to make rather more transports than tankers, and tankers will likely be based on a new airliner and not on a new transport for the reasons I have given.

They bought the Il-96 for VVP VIP transport because it was available... it would probably have been cheaper to buy a 747 or 787, but Il-96 does the job well enough and is a useful thing they can do with available Il-96s.

I should note that they will need a lot of strategic tankers if they want a fleet of 50-60 Tu-160s and probably double that of PAK DA aircraft...

The PAK DA in particular will have large fuel tanks and large weapon bays... on a strategic mission it can greatly extend its range by loading extra fuel well beyond MTOW by refuelling... its wing loading will of course be low being a flying wing...

B-747/787 would need foreign made parts, & Russia would be depended on them, so it's a bad idea to use them as transport/tankers. OTH, some long range IL-62s transports could be converted to tankers just like VC-10s were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-62#Specifications_(Il-62)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_VC10#Variants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_VC10#Specifications_(Model_1101)

The russian air force wanted the Il-96-400TZ to be multipurpose. They just want it to be cheaper.

B-747/787 would need foreign made parts, & Russia would be depended on them, so it's a bad idea to use them as transport/tankers. OTH, some long range IL-62s transports could be converted to tankers just like VC-10s were.

Sorry, I wasn't clear... I only mentioned the 747/787 as an alternative to the Il-96 as a long range plane for a presidential plane.

Of course they would never pick a US plane or a european one... they bought the Il-96 first of all because it was suitable, but also because it was Russian. They are not going to need a fleet of 50 of these so if it burned a little more fuel then that is not an important consideration.

The russian air force wanted the Il-96-400TZ to be multipurpose. They just want it to be cheaper.

Brand new more efficient engines that only require two instead of four that are reliable should make it cheap enough with a decent order... but if this new wide bodied airliner they are developing with China works out well maybe it will be a better option.

The new engines will take time and so will the new wide bodied airliner... but then these tankers are really for Tu-160M2 and PAK DA support so there is no huge rush for them now anyway.

A order could keep the production line open.

It would... but you have to have a practical use for the planes you build.

AFAIK they have been in very low rate production for some time and never entered full serial production.

If that is the case then I would maybe look at how many are available... some sort of JSTARS like platform or perhaps a heavy jammer platform could be options... but with an inflight refuelling fleet you want fuel efficiency, so a modified Il-96 with two more powerful but also more fuel efficient engines or the new widebodied aircraft makes more sense than producing planes now that would not be as useful.