An-124 Strategic Transport: News

Bot are new engines. PD-28 is a Version of the PD-14, NK-65 is a Version of the NK-32.

Hole wrote:Bot are new engines. PD-28 is a Version of the PD-14, NK-65 is a Version of the NK-32.

They are good backups but PD-30 is the target

If they need the engines fast, PD-30 based in the NK-32 would make the most sense. If not, better wait for the PD-35, I would say

LMFS wrote:If they need the engines fast, PD-30 based in the NK-32 would make the most sense. If not, better wait for the PD-35, I would say

Yes, PD-35, mixed up the numbers...

All this choices… Will be hard for the air force to decide which engine would be best suited for its needs.

Hole wrote:All this choices… Will be hard for the air force to decide which engine would be best suited for its needs.

Hahaha, yeah, so many non-existing engines that they won't know which one to use

I meant in five years or so, when they are ready. The air force will propably test them all for years to come until they choose the "right" one.

More important is the decision to build new planes, find the money and order them. Until the first plane is ready, one of these engines should also be ready.

..the big problem is the lack of the necessary engine with a thrust of at least 23 tons,..the Russian-built PD-35 engine could appear only in the next decade. The thrust of the existing PS-90A engine is 16 tons. In addition, the existing AN-124 documentation in Ulyanovsk, as well as other technologies, need to be digitized, and technologies should be modernized. It will also take many years, ..
At the same time, ..the transfer of production of IL-76 aircraft from Tashkent to Ulyanovsk was successfully completed in the last decade and this can serve as an example for the implementation of the project to create facilities for the production of the AN-124. https://ria.ru/economy/20180606/1522157046.html

As I said, before the new engine is ready, they could put 6 PS-90As to make up shortage of 28T thrust, with 4T extra: 23Tx4=92T; 16Tx4=64T; 92T-64T=28T; 16Tx6=96T; 96T-92T=4T.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
As I said, before the new engine is ready, they could put 6 PS-90As to make up shortage of 28T thrust, with 4T extra: 23Tx4=92T; 16Tx4=64T; 92T-64T=28T; 16Tx6=96T; 96T-92T=4T.

Why? Russia is not in desperate need of heavy lifters, their An-124 fleet still has many resources, half of the fleet is kept in the ground for some years until another plane needs to go into heavy maintanance. No hurry for the introduction of a new heavy transport, they can perfectly wait till the PD-35 engine.

If that was true, they wouldn't be talking now about restarting its production. That was suppose to happen a few years ago but since it hadn't, their fleet is aging, needs more maintenance/repair as the optempo increased in connection with Syria & frequent exercises; also in Ukraine, Baltics, Central/E. Asia & Iran crises may flare up at anytime. The same with commercial fleet that needs renewing to keep earning $ & help the AF when needed.
Russia's Military Aviation to Receive Upgraded An-124
https://sputniknews.com/military/201806071065177344-russia-military-transport-an124-upgrade/

Senator certain Russia can manufacture An-124 aircraft without Ukraine
http://tass.com/economy/1008302

Russia set to build An-124 Ruslan aircraft under another brand
https://economics.unian.info/10140347-russia-set-to-build-an-124-ruslan-aircraft-under-another-brand.html

Not Ukraine's property: RF's plan to revive Soviet-era aircraft
https://www.rt.com/business/428639-russia-an124-jet-antonov-production/

Russia needs the manufacturing capacity for An-124 type aircraft to be maintained and developed. Even if Russia does not have
enough domestic demand for such aircraft, clearly there is a global demand. It would be idiotic to ignore it. Clearly the USA and the
EU cannot fill this market demand in spite of their supposed "superiority".

kvs wrote:Russia needs the manufacturing capacity for An-124 type aircraft to be maintained and developed.   Even if Russia does not have
enough domestic demand for such aircraft, clearly there is a global demand.   It would be idiotic to ignore it.   Clearly the USA and the
EU cannot fill this market demand in spite of their supposed "superiority".

Its not question of capability, more of general requirements and financial benefit.

Boeing and Airbus both have lifters they use for their own need to transport aircraft fuselages and other weirdly shaped cargo, Beluga and Dreamlifter that are immense machines. Rest of the bulk cargo is being moved around by cargo 747s. In reality most numerous cargo lifters ordered though past decade and a half was 737 and only few 747s, number would actually fit on the fingers of two hands. Where did they benefit more, from selling two hundreds 737s or eight or ten 747s?

Then stays severe issue of declining aerial bulk cargo requirements, as liners we fly today 777–300ER, A300 series, A380s etc, have often doubled or tripled cargo space compared to previous generations. There is reason why many low cost airlines force you basically to carry only single bag, so their cargo hold is left for...commercial cargo.

So dedicated cargo flights are in huge decline, there were dozens of cargo airlines that went bankrupt due to this, and dedicated lifters in commercial-civilian roles saw huge cut in orders even already built borts werent accepted by buyers. Also there is problem with efficiency, casual liners often see over 90% of booking + cargo hold usage, while pure cargos... often flew with less than 50% of their cargo hold used, wasting fuel and money like chocolate fountain.

Numbers game says huge dedicated cargo lifters are useless, unless we talk about cargo that fits the profile of...lets say turbines, some other sorts of heavy machinery... and tbh i dont see much of such cargo being flown on regular basis, so no more than dozen such aircraft are needed on global scale. Now you yourself wouldnt invest money into something that will cost you more than you would see in return, would you. So i dont feel like there are many commercial sales awaiting there, we are probably talking about a dozen to replace already existing ANs, a very narrow particular cut of the market. Possible byers tho for such aircraft these days could be China and India due to their growing exports, especially companies like Aliexpress that have trouble lately dispatching enough goods via regular post flights, and since their cargo is mostly easy to fit and is of fairly low specific weight, they could use complete cargo hold without much fuss.

For the purposes of military transport machines like this do have more logic, however even then i would personally prefer having 2 or 3 IL-476 than single An-124, as you cant offset availability rates and pure cargo load by single mamooth aircraft. Tho number of such aircraft should be maintained and kept for the number of reasons we all know.

But saying how Airbus and Boeing cant do it... i mean...

kvs wrote:Russia needs the manufacturing capacity for An-124 type aircraft to be maintained and developed.   Even if Russia does not have
enough domestic demand for such aircraft, clearly there is a global demand.   It would be idiotic to ignore it.   Clearly the USA and the
EU cannot fill this market demand in spite of their supposed "superiority".

If they are not filling this 'market demand' it is probably due to their marketing departments not seeing sufficient demand. Just look at the C-5, no indication of a follow-on and many examples now in the US's boneyards.

If Russia builds more An-124 it will be for its own requirements, it is a unique country geographically.

JohninMK wrote:

kvs wrote:Russia needs the manufacturing capacity for An-124 type aircraft to be maintained and developed.   Even if Russia does not have
enough domestic demand for such aircraft, clearly there is a global demand.   It would be idiotic to ignore it.   Clearly the USA and the
EU cannot fill this market demand in spite of their supposed "superiority".

If they are not filling this 'market demand' it is probably due to their marketing departments not seeing sufficient demand. Just look at the C-5, no indication of a follow-on and many examples now in the US's boneyards.

If Russia builds more An-124 it will be for its own requirements, it is a unique country geographically.

Yeah, whatever. You naturally miss the point that the An-124 is better (i.e. economical and flexible) than the C5.
Why would there be a large demand for a crappy US under-performer when there is something like the An-124?

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c5_specs.asp

C-5 normal payload: 109 tons (claimed 130 tons "wartime"; basically shortens lifespan of the craft that no civilian operator would tolerate).
An-124 normal payload: 150 tons (note how fuzzy these western info sites are on this point)

C-5 range: 11,705 km.
An-124 range: 16,500 km.

Just look at the C-5, no indication of a follow-on and many examples now in the US's boneyards.

Some were recently returned to active status from reserves; the retired A models now at DMAFB (I've seen them) r used for parts:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26716/air-force-reactivating-c-5-galaxy/

"The C-5 modernization program should help the plane fly through around 2040 and achieve it's original promise with greatly improved reliability." These modernized airlifters are called C-5M Super Galaxies. "Over 60 different improvements were made to the C-5M over the previous version," said Air Force Brig. Gen. Kenneth Bibb, commander of the Air Force tanker airlift control center at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois. "Now it can go much farther, climb much higher and is much more fuel efficient. You can go from the East Coast to Turkey — or from the West Coast to Japan -- without refueling." https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/politics/c5-galaxy-largest-us-military-plane-50th-anniversary/index.html

There is no doubt that there will be a demand for large cargo aircraft in the coming decades as the C-17 fleet ages and the C-5 fleet, even with its C-5M upgrade and consolidation, will eventually need replacement. This may be 20 years down the road, but if Lockheed continues with its HWB concept development, they will be well positioned to capitalize on this demand. https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockheed-moves-foward-with-big-blended-wing-hybrid-tran-1726883912

Russia doesn't have a single C-17 size cargo plane; the IL-476 is smaller.
What will happen to the marvel of Soviet engineering, the Antonov An-124?
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/429957-antonov-an124-russia-airplane/
"No engine, no plane"-no: use 6 PD-14s to power new AN-124s. Put the 2 extra engines on inboard pilons leaving 1 on each outboard pilon, just like on the B-47 & AN-325 concept: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196900/boeing-rb-47h-stratojet/
https://nikitakartinginboxru.deviantart.com/art/Antonov-An-325-and-MAKS-launch-467707911

Their total fuel consumption will be higher, but in flight those 2 additional engines could be feathered or run on reduced revolutions.
Russia & China will need them for future mega projects in Siberia, the Far North & East, C/SE Asia. No1 knows the utilization rate of existing AN-124s & their resulting attrition, wear & tear, sabotage, or enemy action. That's why it's better to plan restarting production now than to be sorry with shortage of them later. The spare parts also need to be produced to keep the older planes in the air, instead of cannibalizing them.

This was linked in UAC's Twitter. Apparently only serviceability of the An-124 fleet will be addressed:

OAK has denied information on creation of the superheavy plane on replacement of An-124

As it is noted, within the feasibility study on the CTBTC program measures for maintenance of serviceability of the An-124 and Il-76 park are developed.

United Aircraft Corporation doesn't intend to create the superheavy plane on replacement of An-124 Ruslan. Have reported about it in the press service of the Division of transport aircraft of OAK.

Earlier RIA Novosti with reference to the annual report of corporation has reported that OAK intends to create the superheavy plane which will come to replacement of An-124 Ruslan.

According to the press service, now within the feasibility study on the CTBTC program measures for maintenance of serviceability of the An-124 and Il-76 park are developed.

It is noted that within the program SVTS PJSC Il Il-276 conducts outline design.

— This plane has to come to replacement of An-12 with a loading capacity about 20 t — have noted in OAK.

https://life.ru/t/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/1129379/oak_oprovierghla_informatsiiu_o_sozdanii_svierkhtiazhiologho_samoliota_na_zamienu_an-124

The An-124 would be digitalized and its engines substituted with the PD-35. But it sounds like this is a project for the distant future...

http://tass.com/defense/1015346

LMFS wrote:This was linked in UAC's Twitter. Apparently only serviceability of the An-124 fleet will be addressed:

OAK has denied information on creation of the superheavy plane on replacement of An-124

As it is noted, within the feasibility study on the CTBTC program measures for maintenance of serviceability of the An-124 and Il-76 park are developed.

United Aircraft Corporation doesn't intend to create the superheavy plane on replacement of An-124 Ruslan. Have reported about it in the press service of the Division of transport aircraft of OAK.

Earlier RIA Novosti with reference to the annual report of corporation has reported that OAK intends to create the superheavy plane which will come to replacement of An-124 Ruslan.

According to the press service, now within the feasibility study on the CTBTC program measures for maintenance of serviceability of the An-124 and Il-76 park are developed.

It is noted that within the program SVTS PJSC Il Il-276 conducts outline design.

— This plane has to come to replacement of An-12 with a loading capacity about 20 t — have noted in OAK.

https://life.ru/t/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/1129379/oak_oprovierghla_informatsiiu_o_sozdanii_svierkhtiazhiologho_samoliota_na_zamienu_an-124

Russia to build one of the world's biggest cargo jets to replace Soviet legend

https://www.rt.com/business/434623-russia-an124-new-jet-production/

there seem to be some confusion here

The new plane will take many years to develop, the decision has been made, but there's no big rush. In the meantime, AN-124s will be re engined & modernized. They won't be bullied by Ukraine's Antonov. As the saying goes: "a dog is barking, but a caravan keeps moving!"

I was right: http://nvo.ng.ru/forces/2018-08-10/7_1008_ruslan.html?print=Y

In time, their need for more cargo planes will only increase.

"..while there is no big need to resume production of the Ruslan aircraft, there is a need for modernization. And then it's easier, probably, to start making a new plane,"
https://www.rt.com/business/434623-russia-an124-new-jet-production/

According to Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Borisov, Russia simply does not need the [new] Ruslan aircraft. The vice-premier said that the Ruslan would undergo profound modernisation: the research work for its improvement was included in the State Armament Program. http://www.pravdareport.com/news/russia/economics/30-07-2018/141304-ruslan-0/

Ilyushin aircraft maker to spend some Ru3.5B to modernize An-124 jet http://tass.com/economy/1016716

No surprise here, as I predicted: it's cheaper & easier to modernize them 1st before spending a lot more $ & time developing follow ons.
In many ways, modernized AN-124s will be new planes inside, just like the IL-476/8s.

...According to Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Borisov, Russia simply does not need the [new] Ruslan aircraft....

Borisov at it again? No need for new aircraft?

Did anyone inform this clown that VKS has maybe dozen An-124 available in total?

Volga-Dnepr had to buy Boeing planes because they had no local alternatives.

Are people going to tell me again how something here does not stink to high heaven?

There may once again be mixup in the translations but essentially Ruslan is mostly Russian with very little Ukrainian input, and Aviastar SP was only remaining plant to produce these.

Earlier news stipulated either replacement entirely or start production again and increase Russian components from 80% to 100% by using new engines, and avionics.

So the news kind of proven that they will go for a restart in this aircraft rather than having Ilyushin come up with new design. This is probably to cut in costs and time.

And in the end they can call it like they want. An-124M or soemthing like "new large transporter" (in russian).