Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Tsavo Lion wrote:It wasn't that hard to restart the IL-76/78 production in its latest version; the IL-106 is an entirely new plane, unlike the An-124 is going to be.
That is what I mean, look at the amount of programs Ilyushin/UAC Transport is involved in:
To make things even more complicated, all of them are urgent or rather "needed for yesterday"
So this is a tricky situation they are in, and as you say some planes will start to fall from the sky sooner than later, but there is simply no capability to get all of those projects ready in parallel.
It may take also the roles of smaller planes like An-12 in case of critical condition of the fleet.
As to the new models that need to be designed, will they be capable to develop three of them (276/106/Slon) at the same time or will they give the smaller of them to Tupolev and the medium to Myasishchev? Possible since it will be a huge amount of work...
I don't understand the il-96-400m project to be honest. Why?
I have always said Russia cannot just match the west, just with their military equipment, they need to deliver a peerless product.
That leaves Il-106, Slon and An-124 which basically do the same job and have massive overlaps
Restarting production of An-124 is most logical and efficient way to solve that problem
Yeah but the new AN-124 is also a paper plane as they will not be able to build it in the same way. Look at what it is taking to get the TU160 production restarted.
.Actually there is some unclarity on what the Il106 will be.
PapaDragon wrote:
Il-114 and Il-76-90A are complete
Il-96-400 is modification of existing aircraft so it's doable without too much strain
Il-276 is priority clean sheet project which has to be completed at all costs
That leaves Il-106, Slon and An-124 which basically do the same job and have massive overlaps
Restarting production of An-124 is most logical and efficient way to solve that problem
Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Actually there is some unclarity on what the Il106 will be.
There are at least 3 possibility:
1)a modernized An124 under new name to avoid issues
2) a modernized version of the project from the early 90s, that was a cargo plane with 80 tons payload and a cargo bay 4.6 m wide (against the 3.2 of the il-76 and the 6.4 of the An124). It was supposed be powered by 4 turbofan engines with 18-20 tons of takeoff thrust... in this case probably the 17.6 tons thrust PS-90A1 could be acceptable at the beginning until the geared turbofan PD18R will be ready (and that could even allow a larger payload and range)
3) a brand new aircraft with about 80-100 tons payload powered by 2 PD35 engines (basically a scaled down Slon)
GarryB wrote:UAC is a big organisation that includes all the Soviet aircraft design bureaus except Antonov...
That is not true. The An-124 replacements are not urgent... the Il112 and Il114 are progressing well to replace the Antonov twin props and the only other urgent plane is the replacement for the An-12, but as I mentioned... Tupolev can make Tu-330s to ease that problem, but long term the Il-276 should be a very good plane too.
The Il-96, Il-106, and Slon are all waiting on the PD-35, so until that engine is ready there is no actually much progress that can be made on those planes.
Without the needed engines for the other aircraft the priority should be the Il-276 because it uses the same engines as the Il-476 which are in production.
The whole idea of scaling down the Il-476 to replace the An-12 is a clever idea and was supposed to save time and money... well lets see them show that.
LMFS wrote:
Il-276 is priority clean sheet project which has to be completed at all costs
Sure, but they are still thinking about Tupolev, because the work load at Il is simply surreal currently.
That leaves Il-106, Slon and An-124 which basically do the same job and have massive overlaps
Restarting production of An-124 is most logical and efficient way to solve that problem
I guess they are entertaining different possibilities to solve the strategic airlifting issue, also considering the civilian needs, the difficulties created by Ukraine and the substitution of the Antei. The topic is complicated. If they restart the An-124, they need an engine that they don't have currently and they would need to see what happens with Volga-Dnieper in terms of international operations and spares. That would not solve the need to replace the An-22.
I think they will overhaul the -124 f the VTA and use their engine spares for them while the NK-23D is prepared, that will give them the ca. ten years they need to design and test in parallel the Slon for super-heavy lift and the Il-106 or equivalent to have a plane that can operate from austere runways but still has a bigger capacity than the Il-76.Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Actually there is some unclarity on what the Il106 will be.
There are at least 3 possibility:
1)a modernized An124 under new name to avoid issues
2) a modernized version of the project from the early 90s, that was a cargo plane with 80 tons payload and a cargo bay 4.6 m wide (against the 3.2 of the il-76 and the 6.4 of the An124). It was supposed be powered by 4 turbofan engines with 18-20 tons of takeoff thrust... in this case probably the 17.6 tons thrust PS-90A1 could be acceptable at the beginning until the geared turbofan PD18R will be ready (and that could even allow a larger payload and range)
3) a brand new aircraft with about 80-100 tons payload powered by 2 PD35 engines (basically a scaled down Slon)
There is one additional possibility, the one based on the oval fuselage Myasishchev M-60. Apparently that design was great in terms of creating lift and it would be interesting to use it.
LMFS likes this post
I am not referring only to the design task, but to what comes afterwards, which is often more labour and resource intensive. The Il-114 has still all the tests ahead, then setting up the production, then trainign and servicing the plane. A huge amount of work.
As to the Il-76, they are struggling badly for years to reach a minimally acceptable production rate, they have failed until now and only this year the serial production is starting proper.
They are changing the guts of the plane and that means thousands of components and assemblies that need to be specified, sourced, qualified, procured, installed and tested. That is a LOT of work, even when I agree the risk is smaller than with a completely new model.
Sure, but they are still thinking about Tupolev, because the work load at Il is simply surreal currently.
That leaves Il-106, Slon and An-124 which basically do the same job and have massive overlaps
Remember what they said about the Il-112V, essentially they fucked up with the weight of the plane because they only had juniors doing the work.
What I mean is that you cannot ignore one program to concentrate on the others, so you have to split scarce resources and that makes working even more difficult and less effective. It is not easy to handle.
Stop gap solutions are far from optimal on the long run, I assume they would like to have the -276 as a plane designed specifically for the task, with 2x PD-14, and not some hack based on the -76. But we will see, maybe they are forced to cut some corners.
The more sensible thing would be a sort of mixed approach, like with something ready in a relatively short time (e.g. the 30/36 tons payload Tu 330 (for which engines already exist) and modernized An124 under new name (if engines will be available soon), and start working on the development of a next generation (Slon, Myasishchev cargo, an 22 replacement), so that it can be ready by the end of this decade.
In the mean while, having restarted An-124 production (even under a different name will definitely help also the setting up of the manufacturing and assembly for both the An22 replacement and for the Slon)
GarryB wrote:
I would think think the factory twiddling its thumbs wanting to make more An-124s would be better tasked with making brand new Il-106s for the moment... maybe even make two versions for the export market... a four engined model and a two engined model... the four engined model with 18 ton thrust engines with an 80 ton payload capacity and a future twin engined PD-35 equipped model with a new wing... they could start making the four engined model for domestic use to replace the An-22 and take the extra load off the An-124s, and then when the PD-35 is ready a twin engined 100 ton payload capacity model perhaps that could take off with 110 tons with reduced fuel load and inflight refuel after take off to essentially match the An-124 in a smaller lighter aircraft that would be cheaper to operate.
GarryB wrote:That is right but the UAC is a large organisation and it is not just Il doing it on its own.
It is not hugely urgent really.
I think giving them both the go ahead, because they are different enough to be useful in their own way. The Tu-330 is interesting but the Il-276 offers commonality and compatibility with the larger Il-476.
so they will have the 60 ton class Il-476, the 100 ton class Il-106, and the 180 ton class Slon... so there is 60 tons plus between each aircraft... no overlap at all.
Sounds like a cop out to me... when you have inexperienced people doing a project you get experienced people to go over their work to make sure there are no obvious mistakes.
I am not suggesting it is easy, but they don't have one set of engineers running from project to project like fire fighters fixing problems as they identify them.
Many things transferred from one side of Russia to the other make sense to send by rail or boat most of the time.
My understanding is the goal is commonality, so the Il-276 will have the same type of engines as fitted to the Il-476,
The Il-106 is the An-22 replacement and with its original engines they should start making it now instead of wasting time and money on more An-124s.
LMFS likes this post
Hole wrote:Airborne command post, then the A-60M flying laser, a ECM version of the Tu-214 or Il-76...
GarryB likes this post
What you suggest would be ideal, but I would say without knowing the current status of the factory and its employees its hard to make that decision, also to what degree did they rely on any Ukranian imports to build the 124.
In what state is the supply chain for resuming production? Are there any low hanging fruit for upgrades.
Can't Russia offer to buy the Antonov name back from Ukranine for $10, after all it must really annoy Ukraine that their most famous and renown company has a Russian name.
They are already helping, but in the end the transport aircraft specialists are not in Kamov or in MiG, they are at Il. For instance, all bureaus helped creating the documentation for the Tu-160, all factories produce pieces and assemblies for the different planes being manufactured by UAC independently of them doing the final assemply. All what you say is already happening, but you cannot create industrial might out of nothing in no time.
Here they explain the loss of market and capabilities in the past:
But it is, because all the time they don't have it they need to buy Western planes on which they can be blackmailed, apart from losing a huge amount of money to their enemies.
If there is something they don't need right now, is yet another design to worry about...
Exactly, and they will need to replace the Il-76 at some point in the future I guess...
In any case, the perfect oversight does not exist.
Are you sure? People tend to overestimate the amount of technical resources companies have...
If you have the time, sure, but in order to gain the advantage on a conflict you need to amass troops faster than your enemy and that means airlift will be needed in the first hours and days, plus VDV as you say.
It is supposed to use the PD-14 from what I read, it makes sense, being a newer plane.
They need 10 years, minimum, and in the meantime the An-124 is going to be used harder than ever and need overhaul and pieces for the engines or new engines altogether.
BTW, to the planes discussed we need to add the Il-78MD-90A, A-50U, A-100, and the new tanker, transport and supersized transport versions of the Il-96, I was forgetting them too... tell me they are twiddling their thumbs
Well, Russia planned that the An-70 will be ready in time, so now she needs a 4-5 dozen extra IL-476s to fill that gap, while China & the West have Y-9/20s, C-130Js & A400Ms.Look at how long the An-12s and C-130s have served... a replacement for the Il-476 is no where near the top of the list.
GarryB wrote:It is pretty clear that the civilian transport branch of UAC needs more design bureaus than just Ilyusion... they clearly need to add Myasishchev and Tupolev as components of that division too, the civilian branch has clearly been neglected and needs more resources and money spent on it.
The west is not going to ban Russian airlines from using western aircraft....
The Russian military will fund solutions there... so it becomes the focus.
It is a ready to go aircraft design that will fill a gap in their inventory that is about to open up wide as An-12s are retired.
Being a 30-35 ton capacity transport makes it rather interesting on the international market with lots of potential.
Look at how long the An-12s and C-130s have served... a replacement for the Il-476 is no where near the top of the list.
Well designing anything is finding problems and applying solutions... there are normally lots of solutions for each problem, but the best solutions don't create more problems.
The purpose of UAC is to reduce the number of managers... not the number of engineers.
It was practically ready for building and testing the prototype in the late 1990s, they could build two or three prototypes now and test them and in two to three years time start producing them with their original engine that could also be used on An-124s if need be till replacement aircraft are ready...
The UAC has to expand its transport and support aircraft branch to include other design bureaus, and I never said they were bored, but putting Ukrainian planes back into production is the opposite of what they should be doing... their focus should be on replacing them with Russian designs and getting rid of them from Russian service and in other countries around the world too.
Perhaps if An-124s production re-started, they would reduce the overall # of IL-476/106s needed.
It is what it is. They will overcome the situation, but as it happens with the shipbuilding industry, there is no point in closing the eyes and wishing it all is over. It will take years, investments, frustration and delays. Technical might is not created on a whim.
Not while they think they can still sell, when they see the Russians are not going to buy further, they will screw them as hard as they can.
Not that I say the Tu-330 is not ok, but bot Il-276 and Tupolev...seems a bit too much.
Sure. I just mean that maybe the Il-106 can replace the -76 in the long term.
When you are an experienced designer you see the problems coming and avoid them, when not, you have to learn by failing, simple as that.
We are talking about thousands of highly skilled people that are needed, this is difficult for any country.
They have to recreate documentation in the format that is compatible with production techniques now, plus update all outdated systems and maybe engines. They are not going to waste a huge amount of resources in reheating an already outdated design without bringing it to today's standards. And they have to produce and test it. This is many years work.
GarryB and PapaDragon like this post
GarryB, flamming_python, Big_Gazza, zardof and LMFS like this post
JohninMK wrote:This is why they love that plane
Hole and owais.usmani like this post
GarryB wrote:The fact remains taht the An-124 is not a new aircraft and while it has been upgraded, it was designed and built quite a few decades ago.
It is a Soviet plane but the engines and essential design are Ukrainian... time for an all new Russian replacement.
An important point is that while the An-124 was a very useful aircraft the An-22 was also very popular too and its 80 ton payload capacity and good range made it a useful aircraft between the 40 ton capacity Il-76 and the 120 ton capacity An-124.
The new Il-476 is a 60 ton capacity aircraft and this Slon (elephant) design is to be a 180 ton capacity aircraft meaning a rather big gap created by the An-22.
I would think a shortened Slon with a smaller wing and only 2 x PD-35s might fill the gap that the Il-106 would fill, but then if it is not urgent to get rid of the An-124s they could convert them to twin PD-35s and reduce their payload weight class to say 90-110 tons... but I suspect their goals of removing Soviet systems (not just Ukrainian but also Russian et al) from service should lead to Il-106 and Slon and Il-476 and Il-276 and perhaps the Tu-330 becoming the backbone of the military fleet.
I would think it would be worth while looking at an H tailed model of either Slon or Il-106 to provide the capabilities the An-225 used to provide, the engines of the An-124 and An-225 were the 24 ton thrust Ukrainian engines so the An-124 with 4 engines had 96 tons of thrust, while the An-225 with 6 engines had 144 tons of thrust... and a much bigger wing area.
With PD-35s generating 35 tons of thrust each the Slon would have 140 tons of thrust just with the four engines and of course rather lower drag so an H tail to allow bulky payloads on the back of the aircraft might be all that is needed to do the job.
The An-225 had a payload potential of something like 250 tons, but even Buran was only 120 tons fully loaded... most of the outsized loads carried externally on large aircraft for the space agency were empty and could be carried by bombers with payloads of 15 tons or less so weight is not really an issue.
GarryB and Hole like this post
LMFS wrote:GarryB wrote:The fact remains taht the An-124 is not a new aircraft and while it has been upgraded, it was designed and built quite a few decades ago.
It is a Soviet plane but the engines and essential design are Ukrainian... time for an all new Russian replacement.
An important point is that while the An-124 was a very useful aircraft the An-22 was also very popular too and its 80 ton payload capacity and good range made it a useful aircraft between the 40 ton capacity Il-76 and the 120 ton capacity An-124.
The new Il-476 is a 60 ton capacity aircraft and this Slon (elephant) design is to be a 180 ton capacity aircraft meaning a rather big gap created by the An-22.
I would think a shortened Slon with a smaller wing and only 2 x PD-35s might fill the gap that the Il-106 would fill, but then if it is not urgent to get rid of the An-124s they could convert them to twin PD-35s and reduce their payload weight class to say 90-110 tons... but I suspect their goals of removing Soviet systems (not just Ukrainian but also Russian et al) from service should lead to Il-106 and Slon and Il-476 and Il-276 and perhaps the Tu-330 becoming the backbone of the military fleet.
I would think it would be worth while looking at an H tailed model of either Slon or Il-106 to provide the capabilities the An-225 used to provide, the engines of the An-124 and An-225 were the 24 ton thrust Ukrainian engines so the An-124 with 4 engines had 96 tons of thrust, while the An-225 with 6 engines had 144 tons of thrust... and a much bigger wing area.
With PD-35s generating 35 tons of thrust each the Slon would have 140 tons of thrust just with the four engines and of course rather lower drag so an H tail to allow bulky payloads on the back of the aircraft might be all that is needed to do the job.
The An-225 had a payload potential of something like 250 tons, but even Buran was only 120 tons fully loaded... most of the outsized loads carried externally on large aircraft for the space agency were empty and could be carried by bombers with payloads of 15 tons or less so weight is not really an issue.
Il-106 should be a plane similar to C-17, capable for unpaved landing strips, probably including some interesting design features for that operational concept and maybe even with lift-generating elliptic fuselage from the Myasishchev M-60
https://aviation21.ru/pak-vta-tyazhyolyj-transportnyj-samolyot-s-fyuzelyazhem-ovalnogo-secheniya/
M-60VTM, 80 t payload, 4000 km range. Position of the engines may be specially good to operate from unprepared runways
As to restrictions of "ukrainian" equipment, like D-18T engines for the Ruslan for instance, things are changing rather quick
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
