Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Share

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3363
    Points : 3406
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  JohninMK on Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:44 pm

    Not sure where to put this so started a new thread as the topic should grow over time. Interesting photoshop with four C-47 in the background.

    The Ilyushin Il-106 military transport plane, now being developed in Russia, will need no runway to take off and land, the deputy head of the Ilyushin Aviation Complex said on Wednesday.

    “This plane is going to be very big, weighing 80 to 100 tons… What makes it so special, however, is its ability to land on a dirt runway, Sergei Velmozhkin told Rossiya 24 TV.

    The Il-106 is still on the drawing board and the final design is due in 2017. The new plane will be assembled entirely from Russian-made parts, which Sergei Velmozhkin said will be much better than their foreign analogues.


    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20151111/1029931552/russia-plane-design.html#ixzz3rC6DYEMg

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  wilhelm on Wed Nov 11, 2015 5:43 pm

    Great stuff...I've always been interested in the ll-106 since the mid 1990's when I came across it. It was basically going to be a contemperory of the C-17 Globemaster.
    It is a type of aircraft that I think will be very important for Russia. I can't wait to see it fly.

    By the way, that's no photoshop. Those are Lisunov Li-2's in the backround behind the An-12. The Li-2 was a licence produced DC-3, with the licence bought and a few hundred produced before WW2 started, after which production continued. There were a quite a few design changes to the Soviet version.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisunov_Li-2

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  wilhelm on Wed Nov 11, 2015 5:53 pm

    The PD-14 engine being tested now for the MS-21 airliner has always been touted as having a more powerful variant, aimed at the Il-96.
    With thrust mooted between 18 000 to 20 000kg, it would be tailor made for the Il-106, so I'm thinking this is obviously the engine they will use for the Il-106.

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed Nov 11, 2015 9:59 pm

    Found this...




    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:53 pm

    I thought Russia wanted to develop a family of different-capacity transport aircraft for the 80-200t payload range; with the differences between models largely confined to different engine ratings, wingspans and fuselage dimensions.
    There is no need to have different design bureaus design completely unrelated planes for different weight classes, with varying designs, little commonality of parts and so on. That's so 20th century.

    Hope that this revived Illyushin project is part of that unified family; not their own private dumb initiative.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 13, 2015 5:03 am

    I agree with FP.

    Currently their line up of transports would be from heaviest to lightest:

    An-124 (150 ton), An-22 (80 ton), Il-476 (60 ton), An-12 (20 ton), An-26/-32/-72/148 (6 ton), and An-2 (2 tons).

    Hopefully their future line up will include a family of three transports with 6, 4, and 2 engines respectively for a 250 ton, 150 ton, and 80 ton payload aircraft family, plus Il-476, the MTA (Il-214) replacement for the An-12 comes next and the Il-114 and Il-112 are in the 6 ton class, and the Ryashok is an interesting option to replace the An-2 finally.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  wilhelm on Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:56 am

    GarryB wrote:I agree with FP.

    Currently their line up of transports would be from heaviest to lightest:

    An-124 (150 ton), An-22 (80 ton), Il-476 (60 ton), An-12 (20 ton), An-26/-32/-72/148 (6 ton), and An-2 (2 tons).

    Hopefully their future line up will include a family of three transports with 6, 4, and 2 engines respectively for a 250 ton, 150 ton, and 80 ton payload aircraft family, plus Il-476, the MTA (Il-214) replacement for the An-12 comes next and the Il-114 and Il-112 are in the 6 ton class, and the Ryashok is an interesting option to replace the An-2 finally.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here.
    I personally doubt the touted " common" family for a few reasons.

    If Russia, or indeed the world, needed a 6 engined 250t payload airlifter then more than one lonely An-225 would have been built. The second remained unwanted and unfinished.

    A twin engined 80t payload airlifter i imagine requires an engine in the 30kN plus range. Flight/safety performance with one engine out and full payload would otherwise be interesting. I'm not aware of an impending Russian programme for such an engine in a decent timeframe.

    Coming back to the Il-106. Maybe it would form the basis of a 4 engined 80-100t payloader whilst a stretched version with either more powerful or additional engines could cover the An-124 replacement, and a shorter twin engine could cover the 30-40t segment and serve as a An-12 replacement.

    But again, i have my doubts about the 2,4, and 6 engine concept as a whole. I guess we'll have to see what transpires.
    What i do know is that with Antonov now in Ukraine, Ilyushin is the recent historical producer in Russia of large transport/passenger aircraft, with Tupolev concentrating on large combat aircraft/bombers, the Tu-154 and 144 apart.

    One would also have to take into account that Ilyushin probably have a headstart with work previously done on the Il-106.

    In my opinion  the Il-106 makes perfect sense.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 14, 2015 9:46 am

    If Russia, or indeed the world, needed a 6 engined 250t payload airlifter then more than one lonely An-225 would have been built. The second remained unwanted and unfinished.

    Well can I turn that around and ask you why you think the Soviet Union paid for the production of two stretched An-124s that we know as An-225s?

    I will give you a hint... Certain bombers also modified for the role are getting long in the tooth now...

    The reason the An-225s even exist is because large bulky outsized loads like the fuel tank for the Energyia rocket need to be transported from where they are made to where they are used.

    the space industry has a lot of components that are awkward sizes though not necessarily that heavy need to be carried externally.

    When the Soviet Union broke up the An-225 fell into disuse because the Ukrainians owned it and have no space industry to speak of... if it had landed on the Russian side of the line then it would have been used.

    They certainly would not build dozens of heavy lifters but for their new mobile forces a dozen heavy lifters would be very useful. 50 or 60 more aircraft in the 150 ton payload class would also be useful and a similar number in the 80 ton class would also be very useful and if they shared engines and electronics then all the better.


    A twin engined 80t payload airlifter i imagine requires an engine in the 30kN plus range. Flight/safety performance with one engine out and full payload would otherwise be interesting. I'm not aware of an impending Russian programme for such an engine in a decent timeframe.

    The Boeing 777F in its freighter version has a payload capacity of 103 tons to 9,070km flight range with two engines...

    But again, i have my doubts about the 2,4, and 6 engine concept as a whole. I guess we'll have to see what transpires.

    So making one engine type for three different aircraft is bad, but having a different engine for each weight class aircraft is good?

    They are making a new engine for PAK DA that has the NK-32 as its core... the NK-32 puts out 25 tons of thrust in full AB but as a high bypass turbofan engine the thrust provided would be multiplied several times over, though the exhaust velocity would be greatly reduced so no longer suitable for supersonic aircraft it would become a very powerful engine for subsonic applications... a 600Kn engine could certainly be created on that basis (along with 5th gen improvements also applied to the basic engine design...)

    When the problem was replacing the An-22 only then the Il-106 made perfect sense and on the international market it would kill the C-17 simply by being an 80 ton payload transport that does not cost half a billion dollars per aircraft... but now they would like a replacement for the An-22, the An-124, and the VM-T transport aircraft...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  wilhelm on Sat Nov 14, 2015 1:09 pm

    I'm aware of the 2 Atlant conversions, which are now retired.
    The An-225 was designed to carry the cancelled Buran and it's Energiya boosters.

    The sole An-225 is now with Antonov Airlines of the Ukraine, not serving the Russian space programme.

    The 777 freighter uses engines in the 490kN to 520kN power range.
    I'm aware of the work on an updated NK32 core, but is talk about "a 60kN engine derivitive" personal speculation on your part? I can't recall an announcement of a high bypass variant in development.  

    What we certainly do have is an announced PD-14 engine programme, currently being tested, and announcements of more powerful derivitives. Derivitives that would fit planes such as the Il-96 and the announced Il-106. There would be no reason a limited run of suitably modified Il-106's couldn't perform the role previously done by the Atlant or Mriya.  

    Garry, I would love to see this 2, 4, and 6 engined  concept come to light. But there are too many "if's and but's" and an engine, which to my knowledge hasn't even been announced, would be the central governor of such a project.
    Like I said, IF there were to be a 2, 4, and 6 engined programme, I can far more likely see it based on an actual announced programme (Il-106) and an actual announced high bypass engine (PD-14 derivitive).

    Of course, I may be wrong in the end, but that is how I see it based on concrete open source information. Who knows in the end?

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  wilhelm on Sat Nov 14, 2015 5:37 pm

    In fairness, it's difficult to seperate fact from fiction at the moment, and find actual concrete statements about this programme. This was from a while ago:

    In 2014, a tender to develop a new heavy aircraft was won by the Ilyushin design bureau, famous for its Ilyushin Il-76 cargo aircraft (40-50 tons). Sergei Sergeyev, Ilyushin’s general director, said that in 2016 the company will start designing an aircraft with a cargo capacity of over 80 tons, under the name of Yermak.

    Yet, by 2015, despite the involvement of the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI) and the Myasishchev Experimental Design Bureau, the terms of reference for the project have still not been drawn up. According to the Strategy and Technology Analysis Center blog, “the heavy long-range military transport aircraft of military transport aviation” represents yet another attempt to revive and further develop the Ilyushin Il-106 project.

    In other words, the Yermak project, originally conceived as a cargo aircraft with a capacity of 80 tons, may be replaced with another promising project, on whose basis future medium and heavy aircraft, capable of transporting cargoes from 50 to 150 tons and more, will be created.

    The unification of assembly units and systems of the new aircraft will make it possible to cut costs in the production of the PAK TA, and state participation in the project will ensure that the new transport aircraft enters into service without delay. A launch date of Jan. 1, 2024 has been mentioned.

    http://rbth.com/defence/2015/03/25/russia_to_build_new_series_of_transport_aircraft_to_carry_armata_tank_44733.html

    Does anyone have any further info about the first sentence, that alludes to a tender being won by Ilyushin?

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  wilhelm on Sat Nov 14, 2015 5:59 pm

    Just as a follow up to Garry and some of the questions I asked about developing a large high bypass turbofan, it appears I didn't look hard enough, or pay enough attention. In the link below there is mention of the PD-30 engine being developed that is in the 35 000kg thrust range.

    http://russia-insider.com/en/technology/resurrection-russias-aircraft-engine-industry/ri9195

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:58 am

    I'm aware of the 2 Atlant conversions, which are now retired.
    The An-225 was designed to carry the cancelled Buran and it's Energiya boosters.

    And also future large rockets for deeper space probes and manned missions to Mars and beyond... not something they need right now but a future requirement.

    The Atlant conversions also carried fuel tanks for rockets and other outsized loads that would be otherwise difficult to transport.

    The sole An-225 is now with Antonov Airlines of the Ukraine, not serving the Russian space programme.

    So do you think that means they don't need it anymore or have no use for it?

    If a man developed a special instrument to use and his wife asked him for a divorce and the instrument happened to be in the house she got ownership of in the divorce does that mean he must stop whatever he needed that instrument for? Should he just forget about developing a new instrument to do the same job?

    The Russian space industry requires to transport special outsized loads some times. the tail configuration of the An-124 does not allow for external piggy back loads... making a new An-225 type makes sense but if they need an 80 ton and 150 ton payload aircraft too then why not go for a family of three aircraft?

    Developing three variations of one type is cheaper and simpler than making three different types.

    The 777 freighter uses engines in the 490kN to 520kN power range.

    You expressed doubts about an aircraft with an 80 ton payload with two engines... the Boeing 777F is an aircraft that is heavier and bigger and also has two engines and is in operational service so it clearly can be done.

    I'm aware of the work on an updated NK32 core, but is talk about "a 60kN engine derivitive" personal speculation on your part? I can't recall an announcement of a high bypass variant in development.

    They have announced that the PAK DA will be a strategic bomber with the sort of range we are talking about... 9-10K kms will have an engine derived from the NK-32. Now a subsonic aircraft is not really compatible with a low bypass after burning turbojet... that is more suitable for a supersonic aircraft. Commercial airliners have high bypass turbofans because they are efficient... call me mr optimist but I just assume any high bypass turbofan engine developed from a core with 25 tons of thrust in its standard current version is going to be rather powerful... even a pessimist would think it will be a powerful engine... I don't think it would be unreasonable that they might link the engine requirements and develop an engine that could be used in heavy transports too.

    What we certainly do have is an announced PD-14 engine programme, currently being tested, and announcements of more powerful derivitives. Derivitives that would fit planes such as the Il-96 and the announced Il-106. There would be no reason a limited run of suitably modified Il-106's couldn't perform the role previously done by the Atlant or Mriya.

    There are plenty of aircraft they could base the design on, but it makes rather more sense to base it on an aircraft family that is currently on the drawing board... the deep space work wont be for a decade or more so it is not super urgent... modifying an Il-106 with a conventional tail would be quite a bit of work... they might as well modify an An-124 as its bigger payload capacity would allow a wider range of payloads to be carried in external fairings.

    But there are too many "if's and but's" and an engine, which to my knowledge hasn't even been announced, would be the central governor of such a project.

    There are two engines with potential as you mention in a later post there is the PD-30 and the new engine being developed for the PAK-DA as two immediate options.

    Like I said, IF there were to be a 2, 4, and 6 engined programme, I can far more likely see it based on an actual announced programme (Il-106) and an actual announced high bypass engine (PD-14 derivitive).

    The Il-106 is not a new design now and technology has moved on. the engine developed at the time seemed to do everything required but lack of money meant it went no where.

    A new engine and new avionics and a redesign would make it even better as a replacement for the An-22, but in the time it takes to get it into service then Russia will be needing something to start replacing the An-124 as well... so why not start from scratch and look at a design that can replace both aircraft and fill a role needed in the future (An-225). The increase in production numbers will reduce costs and the commonality will save money and I am sure such aircraft would sell well on the export market... especially the twin engined 80 ton payload transport as the only military transport competition is the vastly overpriced C-17.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  wilhelm on Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:55 pm

    I don't disagree with much of what you've written, but...

    GarryB wrote:
    You expressed doubts about an aircraft with an 80 ton payload with two engines... the Boeing 777F is an aircraft that is heavier and bigger and also has two engines and is in operational service so it clearly can be done.

    ..read my point again. I've not expressed doubt about a twin engined aircraft with an 80 ton payload at all. I've expressed doubt about single engine-out safety of an 80t twin engined payloader with insufficiently powerful engines. I even deliberately aimed low and used a value of 300kN plus as a value. I've noted in follow-up posts that I wasn't aware of the PD-30, which, hopefully if it comes to fruition, would be just the sort of engine needed.

    For what it's worth, I've flown somewhere between 100 000km to 200 000km being onboard Boeing 777's, so it's not like I wasn't aware of the aircraft, it's configuration, it's thrust bracket, and the freighter version. pirat

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3363
    Points : 3406
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  JohninMK on Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:45 pm

    Slightly OT but by coincidence TheAviationist has done a piece on the AN-224 today. The photos reminds one of what 6 engines looks like!

    http://theaviationist.com/2015/11/14/up-close-and-personal-an-225/

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:26 am

    Your comment was:

    A twin engined 80t payload airlifter i imagine requires an engine in the 30kN plus range. Flight/safety performance with one engine out and full payload would otherwise be interesting. I'm not aware of an impending Russian programme for such an engine in a decent timeframe.

    Seems to me you were trying to suggest the family of twin, four, and six engined transport designs would not work in the two engine configuration because of the weights involved... I would suggest that to get an engine powerful enough to create a 250 ton payload aircraft even using 6 engines suggests the sort of engine power sufficient for the smaller examples by default.

    when designing the engine you plan for the engine power to be suitable for all the intended applications, but then these are all new designs so options for unusual configurations are possible... a less powerful engine could have a three engine configuration for flight safety with one engine out for example. We have also seen a flying wing type design suggested with a lifting fan engine separate from the main engines for STOL operations.

    The potential is huge and varied... I would trust them to make good design choices.

    I will just repeat the Il-106 is not a bad design, but it was designed in the 1990s and the requirements have changed dramatically... they need a replacement engine for the An-124 to replace the D-18, so having four less powerful engines on the 80 ton payload aircraft does not make sense... unless they could use four of those aircraft on the Il-106 and put two on the Il-476 to give it the same performance it gets from its current four engines... that of course would mean potential for a 6 engine aircraft in the 120 ton class range... but you don't want a large fleet of 6 engined air craft.

    They wont want hundreds of 6 engined 250 ton capacity transports... four would probably be as many as they really need. The 80 ton aircraft would be the numbers aircraft... 50 plus, while the 150 ton payload aircraft will be 20-40 air frames for the Russian AF and likely rather more for export.

    I've noted in follow-up posts that I wasn't aware of the PD-30, which, hopefully if it comes to fruition, would be just the sort of engine needed.

    I was aware of the PD-30, though I could not remember its designation, and the new engine being developed from the NK-32 is another potential engine. From memory the original engine developed for the Il-106 had very very good performance yet never entered service because there was no money and no urgent need.


    An-22s are being withdrawn and the separation of the Ukraine and Russia makes replacements for all Antonov and Motor Sich products an important priority.

    Developing new big gas turbine engines makes sense because they will need new powerful naval gas turbines too. Spending money makes sense when it can be used for a range of ships and more than just one aircraft... making it for three transport types plus a new strategic bomber and perhaps a MPA and AWACS or JSTARS elint aircraft etc etc then it starts to make a lot of sense... it could also be added to the Il-96 and any future wide bodied air liiners and other projects.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9424
    Points : 9916
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  George1 on Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:01 am

    Il-106 is the Russian equivalent to C-17 Globemaster III?


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  wilhelm on Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:49 am

    George1 wrote:Il-106 is the Russian equivalent to C-17 Globemaster III?

    From the info released in the '90's it was in the same category, although it was to be slightly bigger with a slightly bigger cargo hold and payload.

    Garry, the article i read since this topic began seemed to say the PD-30 is the engine based on the upgraded NK-32 core. The article seemed to be speculating based on the debriefing given to Putin if i recall correctly. I'll see if i can find it again and post it up later.

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 909
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Firebird on Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:06 am

    So are there going to be propeller AND jet versions of this?
    I wonder about jet engines and taking off from a very rough runway - as shit could be sucked in.
    Will it take tech from the Antonov prop cargo plane that was v good, but reached a dead end due to the Kiev junta?

    Is it going to be able to take off from a short runway, as well as a bumpy/dirt one?

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  wilhelm on Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:00 pm

    Firebird wrote:So are there going to be propeller AND jet versions of this?
    I wonder about jet engines and taking off from a very rough runway - as shit could be sucked in.
    Will it take tech from the Antonov prop cargo plane that was v good, but reached a dead end due to the Kiev junta?

    Is it going to be able to take off from a short runway, as well as a bumpy/dirt one?

    Jet only. The original figures given forth showed a large aircraft almost 60m long and about 260 tons gross. That's almost twice the weight of the An-70 prop plane. So basically a jet powered An-22 replacement.
    Taking the similarly sized C-17, AN-22, and limited production An-225 aside, only the C-5 Galaxy and An-124 have been larger transports placed in proper production.

    I've no idea about the real feasibility of very rough runways....the C-17 was originally designed also for this, but I don't think it is something done too often as damage can readily occur as you say.

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 909
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Firebird on Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:03 pm

    wilhelm wrote:
    Firebird wrote:So are there going to be propeller AND jet versions of this?
    I wonder about jet engines and taking off from a very rough runway - as shit could be sucked in.
    Will it take tech from the Antonov prop cargo plane that was v good, but reached a dead end due to the Kiev junta?

    Is it going to be able to take off from a short runway, as well as a bumpy/dirt one?

    Jet only. The original figures given forth showed a large aircraft almost 60m long and about 260 tons gross. That's almost twice the weight of the An-70 prop plane. So basically a jet powered An-22 replacement.
    Taking the similarly sized C-17, AN-22, and limited production An-225 aside, only the C-5 Galaxy and An-124 have been larger transports placed in proper production.

    I've no idea about the real feasibility of very rough runways....the C-17 was originally designed also for this, but I don't think it is something done too often as damage can readily occur as you say.

    Interesting. I thought I read somewhere that there would be a prop version too. Maybe a prop one could takeoff from rough and short runways.

    Its an interesting design. The wings look very short for the weight its lifting. For some reason I had an idea it would be a larger version of the An70.

    Anyway, I wonder how it would fit into the overall strategy of cargo planes.
    I'd like to see a supersonic stealth cargo plane in smallish numbers. I know its a radical leap, but its not THAT radical if you see some of Tupolev's capabilities eg Tu-244 design and the Tu-160.

    "First mover advantage" would be a serious force multiplier if Russia could move moderate quantities of particular hardware and troops very quickly in a military situation. The traditional cargo planes could then follow up, while a supersonic transporter did a repeat movement.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:14 am

    Il-106 is the Russian equivalent to C-17 Globemaster III?

    Pretty much yes... but the new plan for three aircraft with the same engine but 2 engines in the 80 ton payload range, four engines in the 150 ton payload range and 6 engines in the 250 ton payload range would mean the Russian C-17 equivalent would have only two engines instead of four.

    Garry, the article i read since this topic began seemed to say the PD-30 is the engine based on the upgraded NK-32 core. The article seemed to be speculating based on the debriefing given to Putin if i recall correctly. I'll see if i can find it again and post it up later.

    You already posted in in post 11 on this thread.

    So the question then becomes why bother developing a new powerful engine to just reengine the An-124s?

    Introducing the Il-106 would result in a large aircraft with four engines that are different from the four engines being fitted to upgraded An-124s... don't you agree that new engines are actually the hardest part of a new aircraft and building a scaled family of transports using the same engine makes a lot of sense?

    Interesting. I thought I read somewhere that there would be a prop version too. Maybe a prop one could takeoff from rough and short runways.

    You might be confusing turboprops with VSTOLs... most modern turboprops actually have jet engines to turn the external propeller blades... so sucking up dirt and crap will screw a turboprop plane just as easily as a turbojet.

    When talking about 80 ton capacity aircraft you don't usually talk about operating from rough fields.

    Even from a very pragmatic view... who wants to fly a big slow heavy transport within small arms fire of the enemy?

    If you need to supply troops well away from a concrete runway then use parachutes...

    Having said that both the Il-76 and An-124 have quite respectable performance on rough air strips.

    I remember reading that an An-124 at farnborough was turned around and rolled over wet grass at one stage... the western commentators shocked when it didn't disappear in the mud like a western aircraft would.

    Soviet aircraft weren't designed to operate from mud, but heavy snow on the runway was a constant issue and lots of wheels spreading the load made ice and snow and mud less of a barrier to operations.

    Of course for aircraft like the Su-25 that would operate on forward mudstrips they were designed so they could operate on the softest ground.

    Anyway, I wonder how it would fit into the overall strategy of cargo planes.
    I'd like to see a supersonic stealth cargo plane in smallish numbers. I know its a radical leap, but its not THAT radical if you see some of Tupolev's capabilities eg Tu-244 design and the Tu-160.

    Not going to happen.

    To fly at supersonic speeds you need something called area rule... sometimes called the coke bottle shape. It is just not practical to shape an aircraft for supersonic speeds and large internal load carriage.... they are conflicting requirements and when you have conflicting requirements you evaluate what is most important and you sacrifice that which is not for that which is... supersonic speed is not important for air transport... payload capacity is.

    How often do you see a transport aircraft design stretched to allow larger cargo to be carried?

    How often do you see a transport aircraft made narrower so it will fly faster?

    "First mover advantage" would be a serious force multiplier if Russia could move moderate quantities of particular hardware and troops very quickly in a military situation. The traditional cargo planes could then follow up, while a supersonic transporter did a repeat movement.

    Yeah... the obvious problem is that to be supersonic those transports will have to fly at medium to high altitude... the enemy will see them coming from thousands of kms away... all they need to do is park a tank every 500m down all their hard runways that are more than 2km long and those supersonic transports will have no where to land... if they are not shot down first they will crash when they run out of fuel. Then the rest of your transports arrive with the enemy nicely alerted and ready.... nahh... not a good idea at all.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 224
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  wilhelm on Tue Nov 17, 2015 12:29 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Garry, the article i read since this topic began seemed to say the PD-30 is the engine based on the upgraded NK-32 core. The article seemed to be speculating based on the debriefing given to Putin if i recall correctly. I'll see if i can find it again and post it up later.

    You already posted in in post 11 on this thread.

    So the question then becomes why bother developing a new powerful engine to just reengine the An-124s?

    Introducing the Il-106 would result in a large aircraft with four engines that are different from the four engines being fitted to upgraded An-124s... don't you agree that new engines are actually the hardest part of a new aircraft and building a scaled family of transports using the same engine makes a lot of sense?

    I did post it indeed. Memory....getting older is a bitch. Embarassed

    I have noted in the OP posted by JohninMK, the following was stated:

    The Il-106 is still on the drawing board and the final design is due in 2017.

    This might imply that a rework of the original design is being carried out. What this entails, if this is the case, is open to speculation, but it might perhaps also have to do with the number of engines. Or perhaps it is simply the original Il-106 designation being reused and morphing into the "Yermak" which is a different design completely?

    I guess all will be revealed within the next few years.

    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3667
    Points : 3779
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:35 pm


    I am pretty sure that Il-106 and ERMAC have been folded into one project. Il-106 concept will be used as basis for ERMAC hence the name...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:50 am

    It would make sense...

    The Il-106 was on paper a good design... a further modification to take into account the new problems of making it a family design is quite sensible and with a new rather more powerful engine in development it would make sense to redesign the aircraft to fit the new family solution.

    It means the money spent developing the Il-106 is not wasted, but that Russia is not stuck with an aircraft that wont be useful.

    Remember the Il-106 was developed before the concept of the Armata/Boomerang/Kurganets/Typhoon vehicle families, so new aircraft families that suit such a structure makes sense.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 909
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Firebird on Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:53 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Il-106 is the Russian equivalent to C-17 Globemaster III?

    Pretty much yes... but the new plan for three aircraft with the same engine but 2 engines in the 80 ton payload range, four engines in the 150 ton payload range and 6 engines in the 250 ton payload range would mean the Russian C-17 equivalent would have only two engines instead of four.

    Garry, the article i read since this topic began seemed to say the PD-30 is the engine based on the upgraded NK-32 core. The article seemed to be speculating based on the debriefing given to Putin if i recall correctly. I'll see if i can find it again and post it up later.

    You already posted in in post 11 on this thread.

    So the question then becomes why bother developing a new powerful engine to just reengine the An-124s?

    Introducing the Il-106 would result in a large aircraft with four engines that are different from the four engines being fitted to upgraded An-124s... don't you agree that new engines are actually the hardest part of a new aircraft and building a scaled family of transports using the same engine makes a lot of sense?

    Interesting. I thought I read somewhere that there would be a prop version too. Maybe a prop one could takeoff from rough and short runways.

    You might be confusing turboprops with VSTOLs... most modern turboprops actually have jet engines to turn the external propeller blades... so sucking up dirt and crap will screw a turboprop plane just as easily as a turbojet.

    When talking about 80 ton capacity aircraft you don't usually talk about operating from rough fields.

    Even from a very pragmatic view... who wants to fly a big slow heavy transport within small arms fire of the enemy?

    If you need to supply troops well away from a concrete runway then use parachutes...

    Having said that both the Il-76 and An-124 have quite respectable performance on rough air strips.

    I remember reading that an An-124 at farnborough was turned around and rolled over wet grass at one stage... the western commentators shocked when it didn't disappear in the mud like a western aircraft would.

    Soviet aircraft weren't designed to operate from mud, but heavy snow on the runway was a constant issue and lots of wheels spreading the load made ice and snow and mud less of a barrier to operations.

    Of course for aircraft like the Su-25 that would operate on forward mudstrips they were designed so they could operate on the softest ground.

    Anyway, I wonder how it would fit into the overall strategy of cargo planes.
    I'd like to see a supersonic stealth cargo plane in smallish numbers. I know its a radical leap, but its not THAT radical if you see some of Tupolev's capabilities eg Tu-244 design and the Tu-160.

    Not going to happen.

    To fly at supersonic speeds you need something called area rule... sometimes called the coke bottle shape. It is just not practical to shape an aircraft for supersonic speeds and large internal load carriage.... they are conflicting requirements and when you have conflicting requirements you evaluate what is most important and you sacrifice that which is not for that which is... supersonic speed is not important for air transport... payload capacity is.

    How often do you see a transport aircraft design stretched to allow larger cargo to be carried?

    How often do you see a transport aircraft made narrower so it will fly faster?

    "First mover advantage" would be a serious force multiplier if Russia could move moderate quantities of particular hardware and troops very quickly in a military situation. The traditional cargo planes could then follow up, while a supersonic transporter did a repeat movement.

    Yeah... the obvious problem is that to be supersonic those transports will have to fly at medium to high altitude... the enemy will see them coming from thousands of kms away... all they need to do is park a tank every 500m down all their hard runways that are more than 2km long and those supersonic transports will have no where to land... if they are not shot down first they will crash when they run out of fuel. Then the rest of your transports arrive with the enemy nicely alerted and ready.... nahh... not a good idea at all.

    Re the Il-106.
    The turbo prop thing did seem strange for an 80t capacity aircraft. Yes I was thinking of a short runway plane not a VSTOL etc.

    I notice that the Il-106 specification has a v low runway length reguirement vs other planes - 1300m or so.

    Finally, some pics show the Il-106 with 2 largish engines and 2 smaller ones. I wonder if that will be the final format.

    Re supersonic transport
    I know it would be expensive. But check out the various Tupolev designs of the 70s and 80s. Now imagine what they could do now. The Tu-244 was a 6 seat seat and one aisle across plane. And the Tu-160 is gigantic (admittedly without a very wide fuselage). Its not that a supersonic cargo plane could not be done.

    Ultimately, I think its a number crunching exercise in part. Speedier and more flexible transport means less hardware is needed. And less permanent detachments in far flung areas. Russia itself is vast, and ofcourse the distance required to support any friends in need - Syria, Venezuela etc is even more vast.

    Few would have expected the need for troops to the Crimea or Syria a few yrs back. Russia's requirements are being spread ever wider - the Arctic, Lat America, the Kurils, the M East. Its expensive to have permanent bases fully manned. So supersonic/high speed rapid response is the alternative.

    40 tanks/ SAM systems despatched rapidly at high speed can possibly/probably do more than 400 despatched slowly in many situations.

    These big birds could despatch drones or missiles. It could be cost effective vs medium/long range cruise missiles AND against aircraft carrier usage, in certain scenarios.

    I don't see any reason why it can't be an offshoot of the Tu160-2 plan. Maybe some  could be a new supersonic airliner- ferrying wealthy businessmen and celebrities from Asia to Europe/the Americas - maybe even across the North Pole? Certain airlines like the idea of "trophy businesses" - a new supersonic plane would be an ideal one.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:26 am


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:26 am