Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Share
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19275
    Points : 19827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:36 am

    True, but they r not as versatile for outsize cargo & must be augmented by An-22/-124s.

    It is no accident that the loads to large to fit into the Il-476 are also too heavy so it isn't actually a big problem...

    The Il-106 was developed to replace the An-22, but the problem of replacing the An-124 is a catch 22 problem.

    The biggest problem with the An-124 replacement is a new engine in that power range... but if you had a new Russian engine in that power range the easiest solution would be to fit it to existing An-124s and the problem is solved.


    Make it a 26-30 ton thrust engine and you could probably make the Il-106 a twin engined aircraft with the An-124 using 4 engines and even better potential performance and engine commonality... which of course it never had with the An-22.

    Another factor would be that this new engine could also be fitted to the Bear... four or even two engine Bears... imagine that... wouldn't be the same though...

    It would not growl...

    Like what they did with the An-26/-12/-22s.

    True, but these planes are also foreign...

    I mean the US is just continuing on with their C-130s and C-5s which are nothing like new aircraft designs...

    The An-12, An-22, and An-26 will be replaced by Il-276, Il-106, and Il-112/114 aircraft... over the next 5-10 years...

    For AWACS & tankers, that airframe is also not the ideal choice. Except the KC-130, the US & NATO AFs never adopted a pure 4 engine cargo plane for such roles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_KC-130

    That just shows the difference between Russian and Soviet needs and western needs...

    NATO and the US needs AWACS and tanker aircraft to take its colonial power to other countries so long range and low cost operations make ex civil airliners ideal.

    For the Soviets/Russians the ability to operate almost anywhere from relatively rough or icy airstrips is more important...

    From what I have read in some articles (do not know how reliable) Russia has about 25 An-124 but only a small parts of these are operative. Even if some of them were almost junk, Aviastar in Ulyanovsk has the capability to rebuild and modernise them and keep them operative for a long time, until a replacement is available, especially if (at a second stage) combining the modernisation with the new equipment (engines, avionics, etc) that is to be used in the new Il-106. It is only a matter a money to be dedicated to it.

    The point is that during the 1990s there was little requirement for air transport... it is the fastest but also the most expensive way to move forces... most countries move really large forces by ship.

    For Russia in the near future its ability to move large forces around its own territory will be valuable and in demand... a demand that will increase with time.

    As new transport types enter service things will get better and new capabilities might be realised... they could certainly build more An-124s if they needed, but a better solution would be a new unified family of aircraft that standardised parts and shapes... perhaps based on the Il-106... perhaps on a newer shape.

    According to Talikov, the IL-106 will have excellent characteristics. Since it comes to replace the "Ruslan", the engineers made the main cargo bay of virtually the same size. However, power plants will be specially created for the new development. Now engineers of the United Engine-Building Corporation (UEC) are engaged in this. ..the new engines will have about 24-26 tons...

    Well, with the An-22s out of service the heavier and larger loads have to go by An-124s. Even if the load is 20 tons, if it wont fit into an Il-76 then it has to go by An-124... at the moment.

    BTW the Il-276 has the same dimensions as the Il-476... just shorter and with fewer engines... which suggests there is no real problem with the size of the Il-76 at all.


    Would be like complaining that the new ICBMs don't fit into the Il-476.... but at 200 tons it wouldn't be able to carry it anyway...

    The IL-276 & IL-106 r still paper planes. They may encounter developmental problems/delays &/ be less capable as planned & expected.

    The Il-106 was pretty much ready for serial prototype production, and the experience of making the Il-476 would be useful in preparing development of the Il-276... which as the MTA programme has been going on for decades already...

    Right. If the IL-76 was adequate, China would have copied it, instead of developing the wider Y-20.
    Increased op tempo will put more wear & tear on the An-124s.

    If the Il-76 was not adequate why did NATO use so many of them?

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1514
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:43 am

    Another factor would be that this new engine could also be fitted to the Bear... four or even two engine Bears... imagine that... wouldn't be the same though...
    Those jets will weigh more & consume more fuel, decreasing range.
    ..they could certainly build more An-124s if they needed,..
    The articles posted correctly state that it's a more expensive & unaffordable option than building IL-106s.
    BTW the Il-276 has the same dimensions as the Il-476... just shorter and with fewer engines... which suggests there is no real problem with the size of the Il-76 at all.
    Not if the cargo is bulkier, longer & over 5 tons! For example, if a few big helicopters, TELs/OTVs/boats must be moved, it's better to have the Y-20s than IL-76s.
    If the Il-76 was not adequate why did NATO use so many of them?
    NATO used mostly the An-124s; it has enough C-5/-17s & commercial freighters for less demanding logistics. If it was so adequate, they would just stretch the IL-476 & add more powerful engines to make it = to the C-17 in payload, for a fraction of the cost of the IL-106.
    The evidence has come a full circle: the IL-106s r to replace the An-124s!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19275
    Points : 19827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:00 am

    Those jets will weigh more & consume more fuel, decreasing range.

    Why would you assume that?

    The turboprops are rather fuel efficient, but with large turbofans I think it would be interesting.

    Needless to say the new fuel efficient jet engines replacing the engines on the An-124 should improve performance and be more fuel efficient... that should go without saying because engines from that period are not super fuel efficient so a modern high tech fuel efficient model should both increase thrust and reduce fuel burn.

    With a Turboprop it is probably less clear cut, but using two engines instead of four should at the very least reduce the maintenance bill.

    If you can standardise the engine design so it is used across a range of big aircraft types you will save money too, but for a bomber the peak times when you need high power is during takeoff and penetrating enemy airspace. With long range cruise missiles that means the peak engine power is needed only for take off at max weights... after you have climbed to operational altitude then you cruise to your launch position and launch and then fly home.

    Having two engines instead of four reduces drag, and is a better solution as long as the two engines are powerful enough so that the aircraft is not made underpowered with the loss of two engines.

    The articles posted correctly state that it's a more expensive & unaffordable option than building IL-106s.

    But the Il-106 is a smaller lighter aircraft... of course building more An-124s would be more expensive, but they are also more capable and able to carry more further...

    Not if the cargo is bulkier, longer & over 5 tons!

    The Il-276 will have a payload capacity of 20-30 tons...

    For example, if a few big helicopters, TELs/OTVs/boats must be moved, it's better to have the Y-20s than IL-76s.

    Well obviously for bulky large objects needing to be moved a bigger aircraft makes more sense, but in the real world really big items normally move by ship anyway. And they have helicopters that can carry slung loads of all shapes and sizes...

    NATO used mostly the An-124s; it has enough C-5/-17s & commercial freighters for less demanding logistics. If it was so adequate, they would just stretch the IL-476 & add more powerful engines to make it = to the C-17 in payload, for a fraction of the cost of the IL-106.

    Did you check that or is that just opinion? Because for a long time during the 1990s they used Il-76s because the C-141s are crap, and the C-17 are absurdly expensive... and for smaller loads the C-5s are also too expensive... just like the An-124s are for smaller loads.

    The evidence has come a full circle: the IL-106s r to replace the An-124s!

    Perhaps it is an understanding thing... the Il-106s are to replace the An-22s, the An-124s are currently being used in that role right now, but are big and expensive to run for such payloads.

    If all you have is a mini and a two ton capacity truck, when you need to shift a barbecue, you don't use the mini... it would be easier with a small van or ute, but if all you have is a truck and a small car you have to use the car.

    You can say the new van is to replace the truck, but when you need to transport whatever it was you needed the truck for in the first place you wont try using the van, you will use the truck.

    BTW even if you could fit an Iskander into an Il-76 transporter, you still need the command vehicle and other support vehicles too, so even if you could fit the TEL into one Il-76 it would need several aircraft to deploy a unit.

    At 40 tons the Iskander TEL could easily fit in an An-124, but more importantly you could also fit some of the other vehicles from the unit... the data preparation vehicle, the command and staff vehicle, the transloader, and the life support vehicle and the maintenance and inspection vehicle... it is still not going to be all in one plane as the transloader will be the same weight as the TEL...

    With the Il-106 you could probably get the TEL and transloader into one load, while a second aircraft could probably take the other four trucks as they are smaller and lighter... in fact the other four trucks would probably fit into an Il-476...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1514
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:38 pm

    The turboprops are rather fuel efficient, but with large turbofans I think it would be interesting.
    They r happy with modernized props & engines on Bears. The USAF is re-engining its B-52s with 8 more efficient different engines instead of 4 heavier 1s that would need different pylons & reworked wings.
    The Il-276 will have a payload capacity of 20-30 tons...
    My bad, I mixed it with the IL-112. But still, there r other types of loads these future workhorses will be needed for, along with all remaining & newly built IL-76/-78s.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19275
    Points : 19827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:39 pm

    If turboprops are so fuel efficient and cannot be replaced by high bypass jet engines... where are all the turboprop powered airliners?

    The only ones I know of a short range light transports that don't operate at very high altitudes or at very high speeds...

    Il-112 and Il-114 and C-130 and An-12 all use turboprop engines... but one of the criticisms of the Herc is that it is slow.

    Now the enormous and very powerful engines in the Bear mean it is not slow, but when operating "fast" it burns fuel at a high rate and is not so fuel efficient any more.

    With turbofan engines I suspect it could be a little faster, lighter and with less drag...

    Please note I am not a fan of getting rid of engines normally... I think the MiG-29 is better with two engines than it would be with just one, but that is because the two engines give the aircraft more power than one would, and two engines with TVC offer differential thrust to allow exceptional flight control even in a super stall...

    But in this case with a bomber... but most importantly because big very power engines are being developed for subsonic large aircraft (transport and the Tu-160M2 and a variant that is likely a higher bypass turbofan for the subsonic flying wing PAK DA) then it would make sense to adapt all your Tupolev bombers, new and old to use a variant of the same powerful engine...

    The NK-32 for the Backfire and Blackjack, and the core of the NK-23 in the PD-35 for the PAK DA and Tu-95 as well as An-124 and Il-106...

    Of course they could always revive the engines intended for the Il-106... from memory its engines had impressive performance... astounding for the time, and probably even very good for today... further engine development and technology and materials improvements might make them even better now.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1514
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:27 pm

    If the B-52s also had turboprops, they too would be just modernized or replaced with more efficient 1s.
    The Tu-95s & some Tu-142s r older than the B-52s & wont last past 2040; it doesn't make sense to fix/drastically improve something that's not broken & still "performs as advertised". Speed isn't as essential now, the range is; their ALCMs have the right speed to penetrate IAD.
    They have many other & more important things to spend $ on.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19275
    Points : 19827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:06 am

    It is not about improvement though that can be an added bonus... 30 years ago they had An-22s, Tu-142s and Tu-95s all using the engine... in the 1950s they had an airliner too... the Tu-114.

    These days there is just the Bears using the engine, so it is not about improvement, it is about commonality.

    Let me put it this way... they are investing dollars into new engines... why not put those new engines into anything that can use them?

    The increased production will help the cost, and reduce the number of different engine types in the inventory.

    It is not like the Bear is the only aircraft they make that needs a powerful engine with long range endurance and low fuel burn...

    The Tu-114 was withdrawn from service because it appeared antiquated at a time when all western civil airliners were jets... of course a turboprop is a type of jet engine but the ignorant public don't realise that... they see propeller driven aircraft as being old technology... sadly.

    Even the An-12 is going to be replaced by a twin jet in the form of the Il-276 if things go to plan.

    The US still has the C-130 of course... but the Orion has been replaced with a jet too...
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 86
    Points : 88
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:12 am

    GarryB wrote:It is not about improvement though that can be an added bonus... 30 years ago they had An-22s, Tu-142s and Tu-95s all using the engine... in the 1950s they had an airliner too... the Tu-114.

    These days there is just the Bears using the engine, so it is not about improvement, it is about commonality.

    Let me put it this way... they are investing dollars into new engines... why not put those new engines into anything that can use them?

    The increased production will help the cost, and reduce the number of different engine types in the inventory.

    It is not like the Bear is the only aircraft they make that needs a powerful engine with long range endurance and low fuel burn...

    The Tu-114 was withdrawn from service because it appeared antiquated at a time when all western civil airliners were jets... of course a turboprop is a type of jet engine but the ignorant public don't realise that... they see propeller driven aircraft as being old technology... sadly.

    It is quite funny that several western jet engine manufacturers are trying since the nineties to study and introduce the open rotor turbofan (or propfan), as a further improvement of the jet engine.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan

    Actually the An-70 should have been the first real application of a modern propfan, but country 404 managed to disrupt also this project...
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 86
    Points : 88
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Thu Jan 03, 2019 1:30 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
    GarryB wrote:It is not about improvement though that can be an added bonus... 30 years ago they had An-22s, Tu-142s and Tu-95s all using the engine... in the 1950s they had an airliner too... the Tu-114.

    These days there is just the Bears using the engine, so it is not about improvement, it is about commonality.

    Let me put it this way... they are investing dollars into new engines... why not put those new engines into anything that can use them?

    The increased production will help the cost, and reduce the number of different engine types in the inventory.

    It is not like the Bear is the only aircraft they make that needs a powerful engine with long range endurance and low fuel burn...

    The Tu-114 was withdrawn from service because it appeared antiquated at a time when all western civil airliners were jets... of course a turboprop is a type of jet engine but the ignorant public don't realise that... they see propeller driven aircraft as being old technology... sadly.

    It is quite funny that several western jet engine manufacturers are trying since the nineties to study and introduce the open rotor turbofan (or propfan), as a further improvement of the jet engine.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan

    Actually the An-70 should have been the first real application of a modern propfan, but country 404 managed to disrupt also this project...

    The Ivchenko-Progress/Motorsich D-27 propfan of the An-70 (and of the Yak-44) had a similar power (14000 shp) of the PD-14 derivative turboshaft that Russia is developing to replace the engine on the Mi-26 helicopter (that engine will be capable of 14500 shp, but flat rated at 11500 shp to match the Mi-26 gearbox).

    As the actual fan of the D-27 (from Aerosila) and many other parts were designed and manufactured in Russia, probably Russia could without too many problems create a new and more modern Prop-fan engine of that class (also to help (re)start development and construction of aircrafts like Yak-44 or An-70 if the situation with Antonov and contry 404 changes).

    I believe that an aircraft like the An-70 (47 tons of payload) would be a good complement to the transport fleet of Russia and could also be produced and used in parallel to the Il-76.

    Such propfan engine (or an uprated version) could anyway be also used to replace the NK-12 of the Tu-95, in order to have more commonality between different classes of aircrafts.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1514
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:48 pm

    These days there is just the Bears using the engine, so it is not about improvement, it is about commonality. ..
    The Tu-114 was withdrawn from service because it appeared antiquated at a time when all western civil airliners were jets..
    The An-22s that r still active use it too, besides some experimental ekranoplans. The Tu-114s were retired mostly due to excessive noise in the cabin & vibration. Otherwise they would've been used longer on domestic routes, later taken over by the IL-62s.
    I believe that an aircraft like the An-70 (47 tons of payload) would be a good complement to the transport fleet of Russia and could also be produced and used in parallel to the Il-76.
    Or they could develop 4 & 2 jet powered versions, like the An-77:
    http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/an_77.htm
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70#Variants

    But due to costs & legal issues with Antonov they chose to go with the IL-476/-276s.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:54 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)

    Sponsored content

    Re: Il-106 Heavy military transport: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:55 pm