Il-76/476 Military Transports

There really isn't any money. R&D funds are at all time lows and what should be spent on it is going to foreign suppliers. Now we are begging India to fund more than the state is going to pay for PAK FA. As far as engines, we have to turn to France to build engines for our own airliners. It is only a matter of time before our new transports have Snecma components.

Sorry, I edited my last post... might be worth re reading... or not.

The point is that now that Illysion (sorry spelling) has orders for Il-476s it should put some of that money into new designs, and it should also approach all other users of the Il-76 (and there are plenty of them) to see if they want to buy some brand new Il-476s to add to the Russian AFs purchase to increase the production run and increase profits. From that they can invest in if not the Il-106 design, then something like that. For many missions the payload is more than 60 tons but not 150 tons that the current model An-124s carry. Having an aircraft in the 80-110 ton payload range would mean it could carry western tanks and various in between loads that would mean you wouldn't need a larger aircraft for.

The engines are already developed... and they are both powerful and fuel efficient.

Ilyushin will not use the money for new designs. Russian companies do not fund development out of their own pockets unless it is matched by greater funds from the state. What they have been doing is pocketing most of the money and providing half-assed products on inherited technology. It is not like Western defence companies that will go out on a limb and try to develop something for any market with no state support.

Russian engines are developed, but they are obsolete and do not meet fuel economy, noise/pollution and safety standards to operate in most developed countries.

Vladimir79 wrote:Ilyushin will not use the money for new designs. Russian companies do not fund development out of their own pockets unless it is matched by greater funds from the state. What they have been doing is pocketing most of the money and providing half-assed products on inherited technology. It is not like Western defence companies that will go out on a limb and try to develop something for any market with no state support.

Russian engines are developed, but they are obsolete and do not meet fuel economy, noise/pollution and safety standards to operate in most developed countries.

Actually, you are wrong on the defense company aspect of western countries. Take a look at the M1 tank competition. It was a competition between GM and Chrystler Defense (separate companies) yet GM lost. Just like various other developments that Northrop vs Lockheed would take place. The point of a private company, is that the government puts the money down for a new system, and the private companies involved in those sectors, compete for the contract.

Also, the statement about the FELIN system, was disproven already on mp.net. They made mention that it is more or less a testing unit to compare to what they develop already (already in testing use with SF).

Developing an aircraft is expensive. Being majority state owned Ilyusion is hardly going to waste a billion dollars on a speculation.
Either way the Russian government should see that a replacement for the Il-76 is needed and that something like the Il-106 needs to be developed.
And regarding the state of the art the NK-93 was tested years ago and its performance levels are still impressive. In the gap now western engine companies are now developing their own equivelents.
It seems to me that your experience has clouded your judgement... if Russian engine companies were all so crap why does the US still buy Russian rocket engines for their Delta rockets? Why, with the last failure of an Indian rocket has the Indian government decided to return to using Russian rockets? Why does France buy Russian rockets to launch from french Guyana?
The real difference between current Russian engines and western state of the art engines is that Russian engine makers had poor funding for the last 20 years, not to mention that most were Soviet companies with offices and factories all over the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union broke up those companies suddenly have to operate across borders in foreign currency. I would be very surprised if they didn't have any problems.
What you are saying about the Russian MIC is like me saying that the Russian Armed forces are currently a joke. It is all mismanagement and corruption. They should all be fired and replaced by mercenaries from France. Is that a fair assessment?
Right now your nuclear arsenal means you are safe from real threats to Russia as a whole. There should be urgency in updating and upgrading, but not at a speed that will break the whole machine.
Mismanagement and corruption... you think buying French and German stuff will get rid of those sorts of problems?
Think again.

sepheronx wrote:
Actually, you are wrong on the defense company aspect of western countries. Take a look at the M1 tank competition. It was a competition between GM and Chrystler Defense (separate companies) yet GM lost. Just like various other developments that Northrop vs Lockheed would take place. The point of a private company, is that the government puts the money down for a new system, and the private companies involved in those sectors, compete for the contract.

Actually, you are wrong. Take a look at the Boeing F-15SE, no state support. Or Sagem's Patroller UAV, no state support, or Thales Dragon Fire which won the USMC future mortar contract. The point is these companies do not rely solely on state orders and funding. They will go out on a limb to develop what they think the market will want. That doesn't happen in Russian defence companies. They develop based on state orders and funding. Companies can't even market products on their own.

Also, the statement about the FELIN system, was disproven already on mp.net. They made mention that it is more or less a testing unit to compare to what they develop already (already in testing use with SF).

Actually that has already been disproven on RMF. It is going into trials to be configured for GRU Spetsnaz. Once the trials are complete, orders will go to Sagem for the fitting of Russian weapons and electronics we cannot make or want, while we will make our own body armour and guns. The French have already tailor made NORMANs for Norway which is a similar programme that is going on in Russia.

They will go out on a limb to develop what they think the market will want.

So what was BMP-T?

There are lots of Russian small arms designs, not all of them were to meet a specific requirement were they?

But it is called risk management... no company is going to spend money developing a 5th gen fighter without government support/interest... except MIG.

The reality is that the Russian Armed forces should be telling its MIC what it wants and the Russian MIC should be closer to the Russian Armed forces so they don't end up developing things that are not needed or wanted.

GarryB wrote:

There are lots of Russian small arms designs, not all of them were to meet a specific requirement were they?

But it is called risk management... no company is going to spend money developing a 5th gen fighter without government support/interest... except MIG.

BMPT was built for the 2001-2010 GAZ state defence order. It has turned into another cancelled project that doesn't meet the modernisation goals of the Army. It was funded by the state.

The reality is that the Russian Armed forces should be telling its MIC what it wants and the Russian MIC should be closer to the Russian Armed forces so they don't end up developing things that are not needed or wanted.

The Army tells them exactly what they want, but when you are using technology based from the early ninties, it does not meet the requirements. You think the Army said to build BTRs with side loading doors? Absolutely not... What is needed is to allow companies to market their products as free agents to the state and the world. When the state issues an RFP, there should be at least two companies vying for the contract. Not the state picking one to survive.

The problem of lack of competition is largely the fault of the state.
Most westerners I talk to think there has never been competition in the Russian defence industry and that the state just tells Mig to build a Mig-29 and Sukhoi to build a Su-27 and that is the end of it.
The reality was quite different with a few exceptions... obviously Stalin telling Tupolev to copy a B-29 is an exception.
If there is only going to be one tank producing company in Russia then the Russian military are going to have to get very specific about exactly what they want so competition is no longer and issue because it is more like getting something made to order.
That of course requires very good communication and a customer that knows exactly what they want or are aware of exactly what can or cannot be achieved.

Sometimes cooperation can achieve more than competition.
For state owned companies it should all be about keeping Russian soldiers safe and giving them the best kit that Russia can afford.
One of the underlying goals of the T-95 design was to separate the crew from anything that explodes like fuel and ammo.
Placing them under the heaviest armour on the tank.
The alternative from the rival company had a conventional layout but with the underfloor ammo moved to the turret bustle with bulkheads separating the crew from the fuel and the ammo.
Different solutions to the same problem.
You might say that on paper the first solution is the best, but then the solution of a normal layout but with a large turret bustle can be applied as an upgrade whereas trying to fit three crew in the front hull of a tank not designed for such an arrangement might be problematic.
Cooperation led to the Black Eagle solution being applied to an upgrade package for existing tanks, which while not perfect certainly improves existing models.

Sorry to harp on about the T-95 but it is an example of a monopoly being created where all the design stuff from the rival was handed over to the main company who have used their rivals designs to improve what they had.

A beautiful photo of Jordanian IL-76MF , Note the comment in the link below

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-%28Jordan--/Ilyushin-Il-76MF/1888708/L/

An incredibly rare moment. You can see how each pair of wheels rotates at an angle parallel to the a/c axis before stowage. A beautiful engineering solution so rarely seen on photo. 5 stars!

Seems IL-476 will be 1.5m longer as per Ivanov link

At the same time, he said, it is the release of the aircraft in a new way - with a glass cockpit, with a new engine. Ivanov noted that the aircraft will be at 1.5 meters longer and thus increase its capacity, according to ITAR-TASS.

@Austim
This is marginally more beautiful

Video of Rogozin's visit to the Aviastar plant in Ulyanovsk.
Il-476 is shown as well as VIP Tu-204-300

http://www.vesti.ru/videos?vid=391718&cid=1

Upgraded Il-76 Plane to Make Maiden Flight in Summer

RIA Novosti

17:15 02/03/2012 NIZHNY NOVGOROD, March 2 (RIA Novosti) - Russia’s modernized Ilyushin Il-76MD-90A aircraft, also known as the Il-476, will conduct its maiden flight by the end of June, Ulyanovsk-based Aviastar aircraft maker said on Friday.

The Il-476 is an extensively modified variant of the Il-76 freighter, with new engines, reinforced wing, modernized cockpit, and heavier payload. The aircraft will be primarily built for the Russian Armed Forces and Emergencies Ministry.

“Project 476 is our future,” Aviastar General Director Sergei Dementyev said.

Aviastar, which also manufactures super-heavy Antonov An-124 transport planes, expects to build up to ten of the Il-476 aircraft per year and is in talks with export customers including India and China as well as commercial customers.

China canceled a contract agreed earlier with Russia for delivery of around 38 Il-76 transport and Il-78 tanker aircraft, after TAPO, the Uzbekistan-based Il-76 airframe producer said it could no longer deliver the airframes as production had slowed.

Russia then had to move production to Aerostar in order to complete the Il-476 modification programs for the Russian Air Force.

The Russian Defense Ministry wants to buy up to 100 of the aircraft over ten years to replace existing Il-76s.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2012/russia-120302-rianovosti03.htm

More production plants would be good, but lets make sure the plane passes the tests before we put it into full production.

Now when I say we, I mean they...

More powerful engines with better payload!!!

If the article is true about fuel consumption then it good buy for China's PLAAF. It seems a increase in size and payload means it could also transport Heavy MBTs.

The difference between C-17s and IL-76s :
C-17s can carry upto 70 tons - Adrams, Arjun MBTs
IL-76s can carry upto 50 tons - T-72s and T-90s MBTs

More powerful more efficient engines that meet European noise requirements...

Interesting picture, but unfortunately not accurate... the Il-106 seems to be a dead program though it only died because there was no money for it. The engines and the aircraft were developed and then shelved.

It would have been an excellent transport that would have been very popular on the export market because it would have had the performance of the C-17 with the cost of a Russian plane...

Also the Tu-214 will likely not replace the An-12... the Tu-214 has side doors that require cargo lifting equipment, while the An-12 has a rear ramp for vehicles to drive off themselves.

A more accurate drawing would show the An-124, Il-476, An-70, and MTA.

w.r.t the IL-476, all I can say is that I'm dissapointed on the modification for not being far sighted enough.

IL-476 still have the same fuselage diameter as the earlier Il-76. It would have been better if they had increased the fuselage size little more so that it is in the size of the An-70 & A-400. This would have nullified the critics on the smaller fuselage of IL-76 for over-sized cargos. Though IL-476 will do a better job than its predecessor in hauling the cargo's that it is currently used to.

Moreover, with the increased size (dia) of the fuselage, IL-476 could have even effectively competed against the C-17, in the absence of its planned Russian alternative, the IL-106.

Now the only option to compete (if at all needed) in the C-17 class is to develop the IL-106. If they had modified the IL-476 to a larger dia fuselage, they could have slotted the aircraft right in between the An-70/A-400 and the C-17 class and got hold of both the markets as a bonus.

BTW what is the effective difference between the Il-76MD and the Il-476. Aren't they more or less the same thing? Why these 2 different models?

GarryB wrote:Interesting picture, but unfortunately not accurate... the Il-106 seems to be a dead program though it only died because there was no money for it. The engines and the aircraft were developed and then shelved.

It would have been an excellent transport that would have been very popular on the export market because it would have had the performance of the C-17 with the cost of a Russian plane...

[/b]Also the Tu-214 will likely not replace the An-12... the Tu-214 has side doors that require cargo lifting equipment, while the An-12 has a rear ramp for vehicles to drive off themselves.[b]

A more accurate drawing would show the An-124, Il-476, An-70, and MTA.

It's not the Tu-214 but the Il-214 according to the drawing. And the Il-214 is the MTA according to Wiki. So, makes sense I guess.

In regards to the C-17 Globemaster equivelent - wasn't even aware we had a gap in this field. Wonder how we'll fix it. The Il-106 just looks like one of those 90s programs that were lost to chaos and lack of funds. Might as well just come up with something new altogether. Or perhaps a joint venture with some European or Asian country?

We must. Close. The C-17 class gap!

The Plane that currently fills the C-17 gap would be the An-22 with an 80 ton payload.

The real problem is that Russia doesn't need a 70 payload capacity aircraft... Russia doesn't operate 70 ton MBTs so it is the wrong category payload aircraft for them.

The 60 ton capacity of the Il-476 which is very much like an Il-76MF, actually goes a little further and increases the sophistication of the cockpit with a reduced crew requirement through automation of systems and equipment.

The combination of the 60 ton capacity Il-476 and the 50 ton capacity An-70, and the 20 ton capacity MTA to replace the An-12s in service and of course the An-124s cover the payloads from 120 to 150 tons. There is a large gap between 60 and 120 tons that could be filled by a new aircraft if there was demand... a scaled up An-22 using one of the new jet engines they are working on like the MD-30 would make an interesting gap filler though rather than copying the C-17 I would perhaps go for the 90-100 ton payload class aircraft to go above the Il-476 and below the An-124.