Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
This is the right attitude! 
+61
Podlodka77
limb
Backman
Daniel_Admassu
mnztr
calripson
lyle6
Scorpius
mr_hd
zepia
Lennox
marcellogo
Broski
TMA1
Swede55
x_54_u43
Russian_Patriot_
Lurk83
Mir
PhSt
Kiko
franco
owais.usmani
lancelot
william.boutros
Hole
Rodion_Romanovic
Tsavo Lion
Gazputin
JohninMK
magnumcromagnon
DerWolf
d_taddei2
ult
Isos
AMCXXL
dino00
ultimatewarrior
xeno
slasher
LMFS
jaguar_br
Nibiru
miketheterrible
George1
Giulio
hoom
PapaDragon
wilhelm
Dima
GunshipDemocracy
sepheronx
mutantsushi
Book.
flamming_python
TR1
kvs
Cyberspec
GarryB
Austin
Admin
65 posters
Il-112V/Il-212 light military transport
Hole- Posts : 11122
Points : 11100
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
d_taddei2- Posts : 3028
Points : 3202
Join date : 2013-05-11
Location : Scotland Alba
Isos wrote:LMFS wrote:Great! I was not sure that the "fatty" was going to make it!
New prototypes should be better!
It's really a fat plane for its size.
larger payload its fatter than the An-26, but i think it looks good and its about time they started replacing the AN-26. also believe they will be fitting it out with a president-S type system.
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
I am more concerned with the engine certification. It is a multi-purpose design for several different aircraft that will get us off of Ukraine as a supplier.
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
Vladimir79 wrote:I am more concerned with the engine certification. It is a multi-purpose design for several different aircraft that will get us off of Ukraine as a supplier.
Aren't they using the engines on the il-114 which is bigger since 1998? Why do they have issues for using it on il-112 which smaller have also only two engine ?
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
Isos wrote:
Aren't they using the engines on the il-114 which is bigger since 1998? Why do they have issues for using it on il-112 which smaller have also only two engine ?
It doesn't have any internationally recognised safety certification.
Hole- Posts : 11122
Points : 11100
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
With company.
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
Vladimir79 wrote:Isos wrote:
Aren't they using the engines on the il-114 which is bigger since 1998? Why do they have issues for using it on il-112 which smaller have also only two engine ?
It doesn't have any internationally recognised safety certification.
What matters now is that it works on il-112 and for domestic il-114.
They have time to improve it for export.
DerWolf- Posts : 204
Points : 204
Join date : 2015-12-06
What role could it have in RuAF? It can transport max 6 tons of cargo thats why i am asking.
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
Isos wrote:
What matters now is that it works on il-112 and for domestic il-114.
They have time to improve it for export.
If it can't fly out of the country there isn't much point buying something that only has half the use it needs to have.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
The size of its cabin will allow ground vehicles, UAVs, boats,etc. to be delivered.
It's only a prototype; more powerful engines &/ longer cabin will increase payload.
Also, with IRPs they'll be able to take less fuel & more cargo, if needed.
It's only a prototype; more powerful engines &/ longer cabin will increase payload.
Also, with IRPs they'll be able to take less fuel & more cargo, if needed.
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
Vladimir79 wrote:Isos wrote:
What matters now is that it works on il-112 and for domestic il-114.
They have time to improve it for export.
If it can't fly out of the country there isn't much point buying something that only has half the use it needs to have.
Where do you want fly a light military cargo ? Syria ? Venezuela ? Unlikely. It will be used to move stuff around russia IMO.
The engines seem mature anyway. It's not like they are made to be used on a-380 or boeing-777. Civilian variants will be produce after military ones so by tge time they can certify them.
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
Isos wrote:Aren't they using the engines on the il-114 which is bigger since 1998? Why do they have issues for using it on il-112 which smaller have also only two engine ?
Where do you want fly a light military cargo ? Syria ? Venezuela ? Unlikely. It will be used to move stuff around russia IMO.
The engines seem mature anyway. It's not like they are made to be used on a-380 or boeing-777. Civilian variants will be produce after military ones so by tge time they can certify them.
They are not using the engines of the il-114 as those were produced in Ukraine. They had to stop production years ago and the factory went out of business.
With a 2400km range it is capable of going abroad but lack of safety certification means it can't overfly or land in any other countries.
The engines are brand new productions from Russia, replacing the versions supplied by Ukraine which only went into 20 aircraft that hardly ever flew.
GarryB- Posts : 40547
Points : 41047
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
It's really a fat plane for its size.
That is a compliment for a transport aircraft... many transport planes are limited by their slim airliner heritage that limits the internal volume.
It doesn't matter what the specs say you can carry... even if it says you can carry 5 tons... if the 3 ton vehicle is too wide or tall you can't take it... volume can be just as important as max weight.
What role could it have in RuAF? It can transport max 6 tons of cargo thats why i am asking.
The same role as the An-26 Ukrainian aircraft it will be replacing...
Where do you want fly a light military cargo ? Syria ? Venezuela ? Unlikely. It will be used to move stuff around russia IMO.
It is not just a military aircraft, so it needs proper international certification... but there is plenty of time for that yet... they are new modern engines so it should not be a huge problem.
There is an existing market of An-26s in service in military and civilian use in Russia so demand should be fine, and so there will be plenty of interested parties wanting to get certification of the engines and the aircraft themselves.
Now that they are all Russian it is in Russian interests to get them certified and ready for international use...
PapaDragon- Posts : 13472
Points : 13512
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
DerWolf wrote:What role could it have in RuAF? It can transport max 6 tons of cargo thats why i am asking.
You won't be starting up heavy cargo plane every time you need to move couple of tonns of stuff, it's a waste of fuel and flight hours
These light cargo planes are used way more often than heavy ones
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
PapaDragon wrote:DerWolf wrote:What role could it have in RuAF? It can transport max 6 tons of cargo thats why i am asking.
You won't be starting up heavy cargo plane every time you need to move couple of tonns of stuff, it's a waste of fuel and flight hours
These light cargo planes are used way more often than heavy ones
So whats a good ratio of light, medium and heavy cargo planes? Lets say 10 light planes for every medium, and 100 light planes for every 1 heavy/super-heavy cargo planes...100 light cargo, 10 medium cargo, 1 heavy/super-heavy cargo plane ratio? Or maybe you could have 15 medium, 5 heavy with 1 super heavy, which would be 100 LC, 15 MC, 5 HC, for 1 SHC plane?
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
magnumcromagnon wrote:PapaDragon wrote:DerWolf wrote:What role could it have in RuAF? It can transport max 6 tons of cargo thats why i am asking.
You won't be starting up heavy cargo plane every time you need to move couple of tonns of stuff, it's a waste of fuel and flight hours
These light cargo planes are used way more often than heavy ones
So whats a good ratio of light, medium and heavy cargo planes? Lets say 10 light planes for every medium, and 100 light planes for every 1 heavy/super-heavy cargo planes...100 light cargo, 10 medium cargo, 1 heavy/super-heavy cargo plane ratio? Or maybe you could have 15 medium, 5 heavy with 1 super heavy, which would be 100 LC, 15 MC, 5 HC, for 1 SHC plane?
There is no logic connexion between light, medium, heavy and heavy cargos.
It depends of the needs for each.
For its size Russia needs lot of all of them.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
History & Details: https://iz.ru/862362/ilia-kramnik/zamena-na-levom-flange-il-112v-sovershil-pervyi-polet
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Isos wrote:magnumcromagnon wrote:PapaDragon wrote:DerWolf wrote:What role could it have in RuAF? It can transport max 6 tons of cargo thats why i am asking.
You won't be starting up heavy cargo plane every time you need to move couple of tonns of stuff, it's a waste of fuel and flight hours
These light cargo planes are used way more often than heavy ones
So whats a good ratio of light, medium and heavy cargo planes? Lets say 10 light planes for every medium, and 100 light planes for every 1 heavy/super-heavy cargo planes...100 light cargo, 10 medium cargo, 1 heavy/super-heavy cargo plane ratio? Or maybe you could have 15 medium, 5 heavy with 1 super heavy, which would be 100 LC, 15 MC, 5 HC, for 1 SHC plane?
There is no logic connexion between light, medium, heavy and heavy cargos.
It depends of the needs for each.
For its size Russia needs lot of all of them.
There's no logic behind your posts. You can't buy the same amount of each, the SHC planes are by far and above more expensive than LC planes, and you'll be probably needing LC planes and light loads more often than heavy ones with heavy loads, so naturally you'll have far greater amounts of LC planes compared to HC/SHC planes. The Federation isn't a neo-colonial power, those planes would be mostly used inside it's own territory and much of the heavier loads could be brought in by freight trains, then off-loaded on to heavy duty trucks.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13472
Points : 13512
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
They are definitely short on everything and Soviet stuff is definitely reaching expiration date
For a while they should tell manufacturers to fill up assembly lines and that they will buy whatever they manage to make
Isos- Posts : 11602
Points : 11570
Join date : 2015-11-06
There's no logic behind your posts. You can't buy the same amount of each, the SHC planes are by far and above more expensive than LC planes, and you'll be probably needing LC planes and light loads more often than heavy ones with heavy loads, so naturally you'll have far greater amounts of LC planes compared to HC/SHC planes. The Federation isn't a neo-colonial power, those planes would be mostly used inside it's own territory and much of the heavier loads could be brought in by freight trains, then off-loaded on to heavy duty trucks.
I'm not saying buying same amount of each. I'm saying if you need 10 light cargos that doesn't mean anything about your heavy cargo needs.
The Federation isn't a neo-colonial power yet they send big antonovs in Syria and Venezuela every week. So they need lot of them too. And that doesn't mean if they have enough big cargos they don't need light ones. Light cargos would have different role and are much cheaper to operate. But light cargo can't do the job of antonovs in Syria. So the logic behind numbers of light or heavy cargos are not connected at all. Two different things that depend on the needs of the army.
During wartime planes are faster than trains. And when you NEED to transport s-400 around russia in wartime you want big cargo not train.
GarryB- Posts : 40547
Points : 41047
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Well one of the issues is that not every destination needs 150 tons being brought at a time, as well as the fact that large aircraft require specific size and weight rated runways and facilities... there is no point landing an An-124 with 150 tons of material in a rough dirt strip in siberia to a village of 50 people... it would take a month to hand unload the damn thing.
Smaller lighter aircraft tend to suit distribution or personal transport needs... in fact a 5 ton payload aircraft would be too much of an aircraft to fly in a couple of hunters or to transfer 4-6 people to an isolated gas plant.
Having only big aircraft means you are burning much more fuel than you need to, but also you are tying up a bigger aircraft that could be doing other things.
The point is that the Russian military has records of what its aircraft are currently doing and they know what products they are putting in to service soon... so if they transport single 45 ton T-80 tanks to a particular base every three months and currently use an Il-476, then they know if they ever need to start sending 55 ton Armata based tanks that the Il-476 can still do the job, but with IFVs there is a problem because there will be 55 ton Armata IFVs, 35 ton Kurganets IFVs, and 30 ton Boomerang IFVs... which would all need Il-476 aircraft to transport them too, whereas in the past the BMP-3 was the heaviest IFV at 18 tons could go in an An-12 with a 20 ton payload capacity, so the Il-276 probably wont be able to manage those jobs any more... perhaps a 35 ton capacity for the Il-276 would not be a bad idea, except if all the other payloads normally carried by the An-12 don't get heavier then the replacement will spend most of its time carrying 20 ton payloads instead of its full 35 ton capacity.
To be honest most of the time armour will normally travel by sea or by rail so it is not hugely critical...
The main air carrier of armour is the VDV and they seem to have their shit sorted as much as possible... (they wanted An-70s but that ship has sailed).
Smaller lighter aircraft tend to suit distribution or personal transport needs... in fact a 5 ton payload aircraft would be too much of an aircraft to fly in a couple of hunters or to transfer 4-6 people to an isolated gas plant.
Having only big aircraft means you are burning much more fuel than you need to, but also you are tying up a bigger aircraft that could be doing other things.
The point is that the Russian military has records of what its aircraft are currently doing and they know what products they are putting in to service soon... so if they transport single 45 ton T-80 tanks to a particular base every three months and currently use an Il-476, then they know if they ever need to start sending 55 ton Armata based tanks that the Il-476 can still do the job, but with IFVs there is a problem because there will be 55 ton Armata IFVs, 35 ton Kurganets IFVs, and 30 ton Boomerang IFVs... which would all need Il-476 aircraft to transport them too, whereas in the past the BMP-3 was the heaviest IFV at 18 tons could go in an An-12 with a 20 ton payload capacity, so the Il-276 probably wont be able to manage those jobs any more... perhaps a 35 ton capacity for the Il-276 would not be a bad idea, except if all the other payloads normally carried by the An-12 don't get heavier then the replacement will spend most of its time carrying 20 ton payloads instead of its full 35 ton capacity.
To be honest most of the time armour will normally travel by sea or by rail so it is not hugely critical...
The main air carrier of armour is the VDV and they seem to have their shit sorted as much as possible... (they wanted An-70s but that ship has sailed).
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
I don't see why they theoretically can't produce a derivative of it, esp. since they participated in its creation/development & supplied the engines for the 3 the UAF currently has.(they wanted An-70s but that ship has sailed).
W/o it, they now want a 100 of more expensive, at $53.8M per Il-476, calculated from the initial order of those 39, by 2030:
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/24519/Russian_MoD_To_Buy_Over_100_Upgraded_Il_76_Military_Aircraft_in_10_Years#.XKGR5JhKiyI
The Il-276 can also have delays; it will be more costly than the 2 engine An-112KC variant with ~10T more payload (& range).
Besides, Russia already lost $100M on the An-70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70#Variants
Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:57 am; edited 2 times in total
GarryB- Posts : 40547
Points : 41047
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
It was an Antonov programme and I rather doubt they have the blueprints, let alone the engines ready to go either.
In comparison the Il-476 is a much better aircraft in the sense that it is longer ranged and faster and carries a heavier payload, while the Il-276 will provide an excellent replacement for the An-12.
If they want an An-70 replacement the cheapest option would be to upgrade the engines of the Bear and put them on the Il-476... it will operate at lower speeds and lower weights... or a brand new propfan could be adapted...
In comparison the Il-476 is a much better aircraft in the sense that it is longer ranged and faster and carries a heavier payload, while the Il-276 will provide an excellent replacement for the An-12.
If they want an An-70 replacement the cheapest option would be to upgrade the engines of the Bear and put them on the Il-476... it will operate at lower speeds and lower weights... or a brand new propfan could be adapted...
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
They had no choice but use Il-76s, old & new, for An-70 missions.
They'll need to develop Il-112 + Il-276 2-3 extra cargo variants for what 4 & 2 engine An-70 varians could do.
The UK has C-17 & A-400Ms; China has Il-76s & Y-20s, but still wants her own An-70 counterpart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas#Operators
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-about-chinas-stealth-fighter-or-aircraft-carriers-plane-america-needs-worry-about
https://aviationweek.com/defense/avic-proposes-c-130-size-y-30-airlifter
It would be somewhat below A-400M in size:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/y-30.htm
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/y-30-specs.htm
If they r now jointly developing a heavy helo, such a plane can also be developed jointly.
They'll need to develop Il-112 + Il-276 2-3 extra cargo variants for what 4 & 2 engine An-70 varians could do.
The UK has C-17 & A-400Ms; China has Il-76s & Y-20s, but still wants her own An-70 counterpart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas#Operators
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-about-chinas-stealth-fighter-or-aircraft-carriers-plane-america-needs-worry-about
https://aviationweek.com/defense/avic-proposes-c-130-size-y-30-airlifter
It would be somewhat below A-400M in size:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/y-30.htm
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/y-30-specs.htm
If they r now jointly developing a heavy helo, such a plane can also be developed jointly.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2654
Points : 2823
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
I was having a look at the available data for the EASA / CASA C-295. Compared to the il-112 the c-295 has a similar size and max take off weight, and about the same engine power but apparently it has a longer cargo cabin size (with just only 10 cm less wide cabin), better payload, range and short take off capability.
Is it possible? Where's the catch? Is it just a better aircraft or are the data a bit "engineered"?
Is it possible? Where's the catch? Is it just a better aircraft or are the data a bit "engineered"?