Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Share

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  George1 on Thu Nov 26, 2015 8:22 am

    QUESTION: Il-106 is the PAK-TA project???

    http://defendingrussia.ru/a/novyj_tjazhelyj_transportnyj_samolet_pak_ta_poluchit_nazvanije_il106-3595/

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2209103

    Edit: I mean is different project than this? http://www.russiadefence.net/t3891-pak-ta-special-purpose-transport-aircraft


    _________________
    "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 Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:43 am

    My take on it is as follows:

    The artwork and model of that strange looking transport plane is just a concept from an engineer.
    The actual transport plane has zero need to be supersonic, weird-looking, or need to look like some science fiction project from the year 2060.
    So that was basically a single individuals concept, almost a form of fan art.

    The announcement that the Il-106 will "look like the Il-76" just means it will have 4 engines and a high wing. Sensible for air lifters.

    There are the following needs:
    1.A new transport plane in the roughly 5-10 payload bracket. (An-26 and An-32 replacement)
    2.A new transport plane in the roughly 20 ton payload bracket. (An-12 replacement)
    3.A new transport plane in the roughly 35-50 ton bracket. (Il-76 replacement and Il-476 complement/eventual replacement)
    4.A new heavy lifter in the roughly 80-100 ton and over bracket. (An-22 replacement and An-124 complement/eventual replacement)

    1. Illyushin are working on the Il-112, ready in the next few years, will fly before 2020.
    2. Illyushin are working on the Il-214, ready in the next few years, will fly before 2020.
    3. Tupolev mooted their Tu-330, but this seems dead in the water. Perhaps the sensible option is to get Number 4 ready, the Il-106, then consider a  
       twin engined, cut-down version? I suspect it will be Illyushin in the end, in some shape or form, after looking at 1,2, and 4.
    4. Illyushin are working on the Il-106.

    It seems very apparent to me that Illyushin are the ones working on replacements for every single category of those, with the exception of number 3, Il-476 apart.
    So they have actual projects either about to fly soon and are in actual construction, or in production, or almost finished the design phase.
    How much interchangeability between the aircraft are not known, but it makes so much sense to keep it within one design house who specialise in transportation, even if the design bureaus are all part of UAC. Perhaps things like the cockpit, panels, controls etc, and various other subsystems will be leveraged off each other and be common across the designs.

    Add to the fact that reports seem to indicate it is Illyushin who are also working on the new large long range airliner with China.
    Any large specialised plane needed to transport space parts, ala the Atlant and Mriya, would probably be a heavily modified Il-106, as the few airframes needed means it would need to be a modified production design, just like the Atlant and Mriya were.

    The above is why I had my doubts about that single image portraying an identical family with 2, 4, and 6 engines. It looked more like a "place-holder" image explaining a concept. Far better to design aircraft suited for their actual niche, and keep parts commonality as high as possible between them. This is where keeping the design of the various niches to one design bureau makes sense.

    Well, that's the way I am interpreting things, reading what has been released, and what is actually on the go.
    My 2c, and of course, I may be wrong...

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

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

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  wilhelm on Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:13 pm

    Looking at the videos released of the An-124 transporting the S-400 to Syria, you would assume that any Russian complement/replacement of the An-124, such as potentially the Il-106, would look to try and keep the cargo hold dimensions as large as possible. Just look at the usefulness of the An-124 in transporting those S-400's so rapidly in a a time of crisis.

    Edit:The brochure floating around on the initial Il-106 design from the 1990's showed a cargo hold of 34m x 6m x 4,6m (lengthxbreadthxheight).
    The An-124 is 36m x 6,4m x 4,4m.

    So it appears that the height component is good, which is a problem a lot of times when loading outsize cargo. Look at the video and pics of the S-400 being transported right now to Syria for example.

    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 27, 2015 8:39 am

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

    With reduced payloads most transports of Russian origin can operate from fairly rough short airstrips.

    Of course this capability is lost at heavier weights, so while the newest Il-76 can carry payloads of 60 tons it would be operating with 20 ton payloads and reduced fuel to operate from a short airfield (ie like in the arctic). Of course now that they are building towns in the arctic and decent all year round runways of 3km or so length they should be able to operate at max weight or something near to it.

    {obviously when they arrive they will have used much of their fuel weight which is a significant weight... most planes can't land if they have just taken off because the weight of almost full fuel and payload makes it dangerous no matter how much runway they have.)

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

    I hope not... having an engine mix just complicates things... having two much more powerful engines is the most efficient solution.

    It is funny because most of the engine power a transport needs is for takeoff and for the rest of the trip it would use a fairly moderate power setting for long range cruise... I am surprised they have never bothered with an afterburner for takeoff as the huge fan at the front just blows cold dense oxygen rich air... adding fuel and burning would increase thrust greatly though it would make takeoff noisy... it would mean a much less powerful engine could be used on a larger aircraft and the cruise power setting is much lower than the max setting. As an example the engines in the Il-76 have a top thrust of about 14 tons but for cruising would operate at about 2 tons thrust...

    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.

    Yes it is that a decent cargo plane cannot be made supersonic.

    It is called drag... to make a plane supersonic it needs to be very slim and low drag... unless the aircraft has TARDIS technology a slim narrow bodied aircraft is useless for transport... and more to the point supersonic speed means you fly straight and level and at medium or higher altitude... in other words dead meat to any 1950s technology SAM system.

    [quot]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.[/quote]

    If you were paying attention to Syria you would know the vast majority of hardware went by boat.

    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.

    If it is worth defending then it is worth basing troops and facilities there. There is no point basing all your military in Moscow and just fly supersonic cargo planes to drop them where they need to operate. They will operate much more effectively if they have a base of operations and established equipment and weapon stores and ammo dumps and radar and comms and transport and local infrastructure... and dare I say it... friends and family to defend.

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

    To build up a force it is actually cheaper using ships and will always be that way... The very light forces you can send quickly can be useful in some situations... especially if they can operate with air power and or naval power.... but they would only be a holding blocking force till the main force has arrived...

    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.

    The main problem is that the Tu-160 design is full. You would not get one tank in the bomb bay area of the Tu-160 let alone 40 and if you put tanks in the body of the aircraft then the design gets much much heavier and you will have to take lots and lots of fuel out of the aircraft to fit that cargo and guess what... a supersonic plane that can carry one tank 1,000km is not much use.

    Make the body bigger and then you will need 10 engines to get it supersonic and with no extra fuel the range just went down to 200km... which will also be the runway length.

    QUESTION: Il-106 is the PAK-TA project???

    Not really. The Il-106 was a 1990s project that was pretty much a replacement for the An-22.

    the PAK TA is likely a future transport programme to replace the big antonovs (AN-22, An-124, An-225).

    Actually the picture at the top of this page: http://defendingrussia.ru/a/novyj_tjazhelyj_transportnyj_samolet_pak_ta_poluchit_nazvanije_il106-3595/

    Proves my point... the enormous size of the fuselage would be what you would need for a transport... but the huge holes in the sides for the ducted fans for STOL capability would use up all that internal volume that would be for cargo and fuel so not only would it be subsonic even though it has a large fuselage it would only have a small cargo bay making it next to useless anyway.

    4.A new heavy lifter in the roughly 80-100 ton and over bracket. (An-22 replacement and An-124 complement/eventual replacement)

    The problem with your logic is that no number of 80 ton payload aircraft can replace a 150 ton payload aircraft without modification. Just the same as no number of skate boards can replace a car.

    The above is why I had my doubts about that single image portraying an identical family with 2, 4, and 6 engines. It looked more like a "place-holder" image explaining a concept. Far better to design aircraft suited for their actual niche, and keep parts commonality as high as possible between them.

    Are you for real?

    the Il-112, Il-214, Il-476 are all high winged aircraft with two or four engines... why do they need to be different designs?

    It would make sense to have aircraft that are similar but scaled in size for different payload ranges... that makes design easier and simpler and cheaper. Making each aircraft totally different just so each design is not just a place holder is wasteful.

    Trying to replicate what the Soviet military had in the late 1980s with new all Russian planes is simply not good enough... the Soviet military of the late 1980s didn't have four unified military vehicle families, nor did they have four military districts or the mobility requirements of the newer much smaller and expected to be much more mobile new Russian military.

    This is where keeping the design of the various niches to one design bureau makes sense.

    Not if they think they own the niche area and can be lazy.



    _________________
    “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 27, 2015 5:24 pm

    Yes, I am for real.
    Expressing my opinion on what is actually going on, based on actual programmes that are currently on the go, not some abstract concept mentioned once or twice.
    My own preference, whether I think the 2/4/6 engine identical family is the best, which I might actually think, is not really relevant.

    All will be revealed in good time, I suppose.
    And I reckon that result will be more prosaic and practical than some expect.

    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 28, 2015 10:09 am

    I think the flying wing type transports look futuristic and cool, but I suspect the new aircraft will just look like scaled models of basically the An-124 with 2,4 and 6 engines for each model... very conservative but perfectly able to perform the tasks required...


    _________________
    “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

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4812
    Points : 4859
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Nov 28, 2015 4:12 pm

    GarryB wrote:I think the flying wing type transports look futuristic and cool, but I suspect the new aircraft will just look like scaled models of basically the An-124 with 2,4 and 6 engines for each model... very conservative but perfectly able to perform the tasks required...

    Flying wing in general is bad solution for transports and brings many issues.

    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 29, 2015 7:27 am

    The only exception to these new aircraft being fairly conventional is potential work with china on those funny shaped civilian aircraft with non round fuselage shapes...


    _________________
    “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 Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:55 pm

    Nothing that hasn't been discussed already, but the article has a side profile that I haven't seen before.

    Russia Revives Large Airlifter Design Work
    by Vladimir Karnozov
    - January 28, 2016, 9:06 AM

    This is how the Il-106 looked when first revealed by the Ilyushin design bureau 25 years ago. (Photo: Ilyushin)
    The Ilyushin design bureau has resumed work on a very large, four-engine airlifter that was first drafted in the late 1980s. The move comes after support for the Russian air force fleet of An-124 Ruslan heavy airlifters by the Antonov design bureau ended, as a result of the poor relations between Russia and Ukraine.

    The Il-106 was originally meant to be a replacement for the aging An-22 turboprop heavy airlifter. Work commenced in 1987, and a draft design was completed in 1992, but funding shortages halted further progress.

    But recently, Ilyushin general manager Sergei Velmozhkin told Russian TV that “the Il-106, a new airlifter being developed in Russia, shall be able to land on unpaved runways…this machine is going to be huge, [able to carry] a payload of 80 to 100 tons. Unlike previous designs, it shall be able to land on unprepared runways.” He said that the new aircraft was in the An-124 class.

    Ilyushin general designer Nikolai Talikov also confirmed that a big airlifter is being developed. “We can speak about it seriously by 2022-2023” after design work is complete, he said.

    The Il-106 was resumed after the Russian defense ministry requested the industry develop what it calls “Perspective Aviation Complex of Military Transport Aviation.” Subsequently, in late 2014/early 2015, United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) came up with a number of proposals, including the “Ermak project.” Details remained scarce until sources within Ilyushin began speaking of the Il-106 program resumption.

    A scale model of the Il-106 appeared briefly at Ilyushin stands during airshows a quarter century ago. It revealed a classic ramp-airlifter design bearing resemblance to the Il-76 and An-124, but with winglets and a relatively wider and shorter fuselage. With a length of 58 meters (190 feet), and a wingspan of nearly 60 meters 197 feet], the Il-106 would have a maximum takeoff weight of 258 metric tons (569,000 pounds), and an empty weight of 135 metric tons (298,000 pounds). Cruise speed would be 820-850 km/h [442-460kt], and typical range would be 5,000 km (2,700nm). Field performance: takeoff and landing lengths between 1,400 and 1,550 meters (4,600 to 5,100 feet). The six-meter-wide cargo cabin (about 20 feet) would have a length of 34 meters (111.5 ft) and height of 4.6 meters (15 feet).

    Power was to have come from four Nikolai Kuznetsov NK-92 ducted-fan engines each developing 18 metric tons of thrust (39,700 pounds)and developed for record-low fuel burn. Coupled with good lift qualities of the wing (area 370 sq m), these design elements were expected to delivermarkedly lower fuel burn on the Il-106 compared with the previous generation of Soviet airlifters.

    Since neither the NK-92 nor its derivative NK-93 has been completed, the reborn Il-106 must have another engine. Most likely, it would be an up-rated version of the PD-14 engine from Aviadvigatel design house. The baseline PD-14 was developed for the Irkut MC-21 airliner, and is now on the brink of flight test on an Il-76 flying testbed.

    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-01-28/russia-revives-large-airlifter-design-work


    Sponsored content

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:41 pm


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:41 pm