An-124 Strategic Transport: News

GarryB wrote:

At the end, Ulyanovsk factory made 2/3 of all An-124

Yup, they did and short of a replacement engine they could easily make new An-124s... but why bother when they could make something newer and better and 100% Russian.

What is the problem with this ?? Ukraine ??

Fuck Ukraine

It is actually the Ukraine trying to fuck Russia... and by keeping Antonovs in service Russia would be giving them all sorts of opportunities to do so...

As soon as replacements are ready they should put them into production and withdraw those Soviet aircraft as quickly as possible.

Antonov was a Soviet company, Russia has the same right than Ukraine ,in fact Oleg Antonov was from Moscow and the main thing is by 2050 The Ukraine will have disappeared

All very true, but by 2050 they will have all new transport aircraft and there will be no Antonovs left in Russia... except probably a few An-2s because they will likely last forever...

Well, the An-2 has already a 100% russian made successor reading for mass production.

GarryB wrote:
With modernisation they could keep using An-22s and An-12s too... the An-22 would actually be easiest because they still use those engines in significantly upgraded form on their Tu-95s... but they have not.

Of course not, An-12 resource is exhausted is better make a new airplane (first flight of An-12 in 1957), it is necesary a new and modern design, and good for export. An-22 is the same (First flight in 1965) and the replacement are the An-124 of the reserve that remain to be put into service

An-124, like C-5 Galaxy will have no replacement, simply beacuse a project of this magnitude to manufacture only 30 or 40 machines is not economically viable nowadays. That only happened in the cold war

IL-76 is in service since 1974, Il-76MD-90A will be manofactured until 2040 or more and will be in operation until 2080 at least, this is more than 100 years of service

The plan is to retire Antonovs and replace them with Russian platforms.

Yes, all Antonovs should be retired , even An-148 replaced by SSJ or MS.21 and An-140 replaced by Il-114

However, An-124 will continue in service for several decades, it is a unique case due to its large size and the impossibility of replacement nowadays
In any case, the russian An-124´s are Russian aircraft, they was manufactured in Aviastar and the factory has full capacity to do it again.

This is an opportunity to take what they have learned with a few decades operational experience with An-124s and design something better while they are waiting for new engines to be developed to replace the Ukrainian engines currently used.

Russia should concentrate its efforts on the Il-96 to make an MRTT, increasingly scarce resources cannot be wasted to manufacture something that does not offer a quantitative or qualitative leap and also with the An-124 in the middle of its useful life .

Yup, they did and short of a replacement engine they could easily make new An-124s... but why bother when they could make something newer and better and 100% Russian.

Russian can make a new engine 100% russian, as the current engine (Soviet= Russian). No hurry for that, it will be necesary only after 2040

What is the RUAF requirement for strategic transport? It appears to me that they are unlikely to need more then 20-25 AN-124 class planes. So how on earth do they justify designing and certifying a whole new platform? Even if they need 50 frames? Are they gonna build 279 frames like the US built for C-17? No way. They do not have or plan a base infrastructure that can justify such insanity. As it stands a chunk of their AN-124 fleet is in mothballs anyway. They only built 55 AN-124's in almost 20 years. It would make far more sense to reengine with derated PD-35s and either resume production of the modified version or upgrade the fleet and build a larger plane based on the IL-76 like the Chinese did. I cannot see Russia really needing much more then 25 AN-124 class planes, 50 at the very most. Especially when they are backed with a large fleet of IL-76s.

Typically half the cost in developing a new aircraft is in the engines.
Once they develop the PD-35 engines for the CRAIC 929 either adapting them to existing An-124s or developing a new aircraft should be a least concern.
I personally think something like the Airbus MRTT but based on the CRAIC 929 airframe would make a lot of sense.

But Russia has had use cases for the An-124 with heavier payloads where something like the MRTT wouldn't make sense.
Like transporting partially dissassembled fighter aircraft to other countries.

For those they need a different airframe than something like an MRTT. Because of patents they likely won't use the An-124 airframe.
Even if they wanted to use the An-124 airframe it is likely not optimal to build with modern tools and techniques.

So there comes the case for Slon.

But how many do they really need and how far can they get my reconditioning the ones they have and also reengining them? AFIK they all have pretty low hours, with new engines they can easily last to 2050. The cost is not just the design, but the supply chain and tooling to manufacture. This is a HUGE cost made larger by small volumes.

Well, the An-2 has already a 100% russian made successor reading for mass production.

True, but if it keeps working and you can keep going it is always going to be cheaper to use something you already own than to buy something new.

Of course not, An-12 resource is exhausted is better make a new airplane (first flight of An-12 in 1957), it is necesary a new and modern design, and good for export.

An-2 first flight 1947, and there have been several replacements developed and put into service but none of them offered the same performance for the price and it has outlasted most of the replacements so far.

The Il-276 will be quite a different plane... sort of a cross between an An-72 and the An-12 with jet engines for higher speeds, but it should be a good replacement for both with higher speeds as a bonus.

An-22 is the same (First flight in 1965) and the replacement are the An-124 of the reserve that remain to be put into service

The An-22 was popular and could easily have been upgraded and still be in use today, but they have a policy of getting rid of Antonovs and using Russian aircraft wherever possible.

An-124, like C-5 Galaxy will have no replacement, simply beacuse a project of this magnitude to manufacture only 30 or 40 machines is not economically viable nowadays. That only happened in the cold war

They can make it viable by making it modular allowing a 90-100 ton payload, a 150 ton payload, and a 180 ton payload design be developed using related engines.

It actually sounds like they want a 100 ton payload aircraft in the form of a modified Il-106 and a 180 ton payload larger aircraft called Slon, with the potential for a model for external loads to be developed from the latter aircraft too.

IL-76 is in service since 1974, Il-76MD-90A will be manofactured until 2040 or more and will be in operation until 2080 at least, this is more than 100 years of service

They make fun regarding the image but the same image can be made for Soviet interceptors flying with B-52 that were made in the 1950s and 1960s... the Tu-95s currently in use were made in the 1980s and 1990s... the US B-52s made in the 50s and 60s will soldier on till the 2050s based on current plans.

However, An-124 will continue in service for several decades, it is a unique case due to its large size and the impossibility of replacement nowadays
In any case, the russian An-124´s are Russian aircraft, they was manufactured in Aviastar and the factory has full capacity to do it again.

They have plans for a replacement aircraft that is waiting for new engines. Those new engines could be used on current An-124s, but the Russian military is not buying new An-124s... it might reengine the ones it has and use them up, but it will also build new replacement aircraft with those new engines too and produce them and gradually retire their An-124s.

The thing is that they are hardly going to encourage existing An-124 uses to keep using them... especially Russian airlines... new aircraft as soon as possible...

Russia should concentrate its efforts on the Il-96 to make an MRTT, increasingly scarce resources cannot be wasted to manufacture something that does not offer a quantitative or qualitative leap and also with the An-124 in the middle of its useful life .

I disagree. Killing off the An-124 as fast as possible is a good thing for Russia... the fewer there are around the place the more drips and drops of life support for Ukraine... why keep that zombie alive... develop a replacement with better performance and avionics and equipment and new engines that make it much more affordable and sell it to the current users of the Soviet aircraft and take that market...

Russian can make a new engine 100% russian, as the current engine (Soviet= Russian). No hurry for that, it will be necesary only after 2040

The Russian Air Force does not have a huge number of An-124s and has even fewer engines. They will start making replacements for the An-124 probably as soon as the PD-35 engine is ready which will likely be the middle of the 2020s... they can start by re-engining the An-124s and perhaps the Il-106s they might have already with PS-90 engines to upgrade them from 90 ton payload An-22 replacements to 100 ton payload aircraft replacing some An-124 missions.

But once the PD-35s are ready Slon will be built and at first suppliment the re-engined An-124s but as numbers increase they might sell off An-124s with PD-35 engines to private operators and replace their fleet of An-124s with Slons and Il-106s.

They only built 55 AN-124's in almost 20 years.

They also had about 4 economic collapses during that period and lost most of their international trade links to friendly countries around the world.

It would make far more sense to reengine with derated PD-35s and either resume production of the modified version or upgrade the fleet and build a larger plane based on the IL-76 like the Chinese did.

They already have the Il-106 programme in the C-17 size weight class... and it should sell rather well internationally with better performance and a fraction of the cost.

I cannot see Russia really needing much more then 25 AN-124 class planes, 50 at the very most. Especially when they are backed with a large fleet of IL-76s.

Russia is going to need to expand it international trade links, and while a lot will go by sea some of it can go by air... the Russian military has plans to make its lighter forces (Kurganets and Boomerang) very very mobile and large aircraft will be a key part of that change in strategy.

But how many do they really need and how far can they get my reconditioning the ones they have and also reengining them? AFIK they all have pretty low hours, with new engines they can easily last to 2050. The cost is not just the design, but the supply chain and tooling to manufacture. This is a HUGE cost made larger by small volumes.

Most of the upgrades for the An-124 could be used on the Slon... part of the upgrades for the Il-476 were improvements in manufacturing wing components that were made larger and stronger and in fewer pieces...

New materials and new designs and new shapes offer potential performance improvements, but they don't have to make it completely alien tech super plane shit that has nothing compatible with what they are currently making.

They could in fact make it a modular enlarged Il-106 that could be scaled to any size load you need without massive redesign...

For years the New Zealand military has been using C-130s which lack the range... with a full payload it is not a strategic transport it is a theatre transport...

New Zealand would have been better off with an Il-76 and today even more so with the Il-476, but an Il-106 it would be even better... we could fly to the Pacific Islands and back without using up their supplies of aviation fuel... without needing to hop from island to island...

The military are paying for these aircraft... they want aircraft and they don't care how much they will cost.

GarryB wrote:

Well, the An-2 has already a 100% russian made successor reading for mass production.

True, but if it keeps working and you can keep going it is always going to be cheaper to use something you already own than to buy something new.

Of course not, An-12 resource is exhausted is better make a new airplane (first flight of An-12 in 1957), it is necesary a new and modern design, and good for export.

An-2 first flight 1947, and there have been several replacements developed and put into service but none of them offered the same performance for the price and it has outlasted most of the replacements so far.

The Il-276 will be quite a different plane... sort of a cross between an An-72 and the An-12 with jet engines for higher speeds, but it should be a good replacement for both with higher speeds as a bonus.

An-22 is the same (First flight in 1965) and the replacement are the An-124 of the reserve that remain to be put into service

The An-22 was popular and could easily have been upgraded and still be in use today, but they have a policy of getting rid of Antonovs and using Russian aircraft wherever possible.

An-124, like C-5 Galaxy will have no replacement, simply beacuse a project of this magnitude to manufacture only 30 or 40 machines is not economically viable nowadays. That only happened in the cold war

They can make it viable by making it modular allowing a 90-100 ton payload, a 150 ton payload, and a 180 ton payload design be developed using related engines.

It actually sounds like they want a 100 ton payload aircraft in the form of a modified Il-106 and a 180 ton payload larger aircraft called Slon, with the potential for a model for external loads to be developed from the latter aircraft too.

IL-76 is in service since 1974, Il-76MD-90A will be manofactured until 2040 or more and will be in operation until 2080 at least, this is more than 100 years of service

They make fun regarding the image but the same image can be made for Soviet interceptors flying with B-52 that were made in the 1950s and 1960s... the Tu-95s currently in use were made in the 1980s and 1990s... the US B-52s made in the 50s and 60s will soldier on till the 2050s based on current plans.

However, An-124 will continue in service for several decades, it is a unique case due to its large size and the impossibility of replacement nowadays
In any case, the russian An-124´s are Russian aircraft, they was manufactured in Aviastar and the factory has full capacity to do it again.

They have plans for a replacement aircraft that is waiting for new engines. Those new engines could be used on current An-124s, but the Russian military is not buying new An-124s... it might reengine the ones it has and use them up, but it will also build new replacement aircraft with those new engines too and produce them and gradually retire their An-124s.

The thing is that they are hardly going to encourage existing An-124 uses to keep using them... especially Russian airlines... new aircraft as soon as possible...

Russia should concentrate its efforts on the Il-96 to make an MRTT, increasingly scarce resources cannot be wasted to manufacture something that does not offer a quantitative or qualitative leap and also with the An-124 in the middle of its useful life .

I disagree. Killing off the An-124 as fast as possible is a good thing for Russia... the fewer there are around the place the more drips and drops of life support for Ukraine... why keep that zombie alive... develop a replacement with better performance and avionics and equipment and new engines that make it much more affordable and sell it to the current users of the Soviet aircraft and take that market...

Russian can make a new engine 100% russian, as the current engine (Soviet= Russian). No hurry for that, it will be necesary only after 2040

The Russian Air Force does not have a huge number of An-124s and has even fewer engines. They will start making replacements for the An-124 probably as soon as the PD-35 engine is ready which will likely be the middle of the 2020s... they can start by re-engining the An-124s and perhaps the Il-106s they might have already with PS-90 engines to upgrade them from 90 ton payload An-22 replacements to 100 ton payload aircraft replacing some An-124 missions.

But once the PD-35s are ready Slon will be built and at first suppliment the re-engined  An-124s but as numbers increase they might sell off An-124s with PD-35 engines to private operators and replace their fleet of An-124s with Slons and Il-106s.

They only built 55 AN-124's in almost 20 years.

They also had about 4 economic collapses during that period and lost most of their international trade links to friendly countries around the world.

It would make far more sense to reengine with derated PD-35s and either resume production of the modified version or upgrade the fleet and build a larger plane based on the IL-76 like the Chinese did.

They already have the Il-106 programme in the C-17 size weight class... and it should sell rather well internationally with better performance and a fraction of the cost.

I cannot see Russia really needing much more then 25 AN-124 class planes, 50 at the very most. Especially when they are backed with a large fleet of IL-76s.

Russia is going to need to expand it international trade links, and while a lot will go by sea some of it can go by air... the Russian military has plans to make its lighter forces (Kurganets and Boomerang) very very mobile and large aircraft will be a key part of that change in strategy.

But how many do they really need and how far can they get my reconditioning the ones they have and also reengining them? AFIK they all have pretty low hours, with new engines they can easily last to 2050. The cost is not just the design, but the supply chain and tooling to manufacture. This is a HUGE cost made larger by small volumes.

Most of the upgrades for the An-124 could be used on the Slon... part of the upgrades for the Il-476 were improvements in manufacturing wing components that were made larger and stronger and in fewer pieces...

New materials and new designs and new shapes offer potential performance improvements, but they don't have to make it completely alien tech super plane shit that has nothing compatible with what they are currently making.

They could in fact make it a modular enlarged Il-106 that could be scaled to any size load you need without massive redesign...

For years the New Zealand military has been using C-130s which lack the range... with a full payload it is not a strategic transport it is a theatre transport...

New Zealand would have been better off with an Il-76 and today even more so with the Il-476, but an Il-106 it would be even better... we could fly to the Pacific Islands and back without using up their supplies of aviation fuel... without needing to hop from island to island...

The military are paying for these aircraft... they want aircraft and they don't care how much they will cost.

Yeah but I thought that NZ (as Australia, even if maybe a little bit less so) was part of the American military world, so orders of Russian military cargo aircrafts would be at minimum problematic...


Concerning some of the other comments, if I am not mistaken a kurganet without external protection is 3.2 meters, so in a an124 or in a Slon they could be transported in a line of 2, while the il76 could only transport them in a single line. Furthermore other equipments are too wide to be transported at all on a il 76.

As far as the MRTT variant of the widebody, it will be probably realized, but from the 2 engine version of the il96. All of the CR929 will be assembled in Shangai and furthermore the fuselage and other parts will be built in China. Russia should not depend on other countries for military airplanes. Furthermore they need to keep production of widebodies in Russia (currently il96 are assembled in Voronezh).

Finally a multirole transport tanker is useful, but is not a substitute for il76, il 106, or An22/ an124.

The only aircraft that it could overperform is the il78 tanker, but given its higher ruggedness and its ability to operate from non prepared airfields, I believe that il 78 will retain an important niche even after the tanker based on a twin engine il96 will be ready.

GarryB wrote:
Russia is going to need to expand it international trade links, and while a lot will go by sea some of it can go by air... the Russian military has plans to make its lighter forces (Kurganets and Boomerang) very very mobile and large aircraft will be a key part of that change in strategy.

Military airlifters are NOT very good cargo planes. The AN-124 exists in a small niche market for outsize cargo. It cannot compete for regular cargo as it is too inefficient. Also you have to realize that this is including the fact the privately owned frames were acquired at post Soviet collapse fire sale prices. An airlifter built at todays costs would still be incredibly inefficient due to its massive cross sectio, have massive capital costs, and also will not have passanger traffic to subsidize its cargo ops and frequency. All the major airfreight companies use airliners to move cargo. So when you boil it down to purely military requirements, how many frames does Russia need for this type of super heavy airlifter? If they want to move freight across Russia MC-21 and CR-929 freighters would make far more sense. Even cheaper, used Airbus A330 freighter conversions.

mnztr wrote:

GarryB wrote:
Russia is going to need to expand it international trade links, and while a lot will go by sea some of it can go by air... the Russian military has plans to make its lighter forces (Kurganets and Boomerang) very very mobile and large aircraft will be a key part of that change in strategy.

Military airlifters are NOT very good cargo planes. The AN-124 exists in a small niche market for outsize cargo. It cannot compete for regular cargo as it is too inefficient. Also you have to realize that this is including the fact the privately owned frames were acquired at post Soviet collapse fire sale prices. An airlifter built at todays costs would still be incredibly inefficient due to its massive cross sectio, have massive capital costs, and also will not have passanger traffic to subsidize its cargo ops and frequency. All the major airfreight companies use airliners to move cargo. So when you boil it down to purely military requirements, how many frames does Russia need for this type of super heavy airlifter? If they want to move freight across Russia MC-21 and CR-929 freighters would make far more sense. Even cheaper, used Airbus A330 freighter conversions.

possibly that was the reason for which the Slon was presented in 2 version: one with a cargo bay 6.4 m wide (as the An124) for the military and one with a 5 m wide cargo bay for civilian use (mainky volga dnepr).
1
Of course if you use them to trasport just standard pallets, a cargo version ot a civilian airliner (like a il96, a reengined tu204 or mc21, etc similar... no need to use foreign types especially since for the engine you pay for the flight hours normally) would be more efficient and less expensive.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
 possibly that was the reason for which the Slon was presented in 2 version: one with a cargo bay 6.4 m wide (as the An124) for the military and one with a 5 m wide cargo bay for civilian use (mainky volga dnepr).
1
Of course if you use them to trasport just standard pallets, a cargo version ot a civilian airliner (like a il96, a  reengined tu204 or mc21, etc similar... no need to use foreign types especially since for the engine you pay for the flight hours normally) would be more efficient and less expensive.

the narrower version is still wider then the current AN-124, which means it will be purely for outsized freight and not viable for mainstream air cargo ops. I was kinda hoping that is they do build it, they would build a lifting body design. It makes a lot of sense in an airlifter with very heavy loads.

mnztr wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
 possibly that was the reason for which the Slon was presented in 2 version: one with a cargo bay 6.4 m wide (as the An124) for the military and one with a 5 m wide cargo bay for civilian use (mainky volga dnepr).
1
Of course if you use them to trasport just standard pallets, a cargo version ot a civilian airliner (like a il96, a  reengined tu204 or mc21, etc similar... no need to use foreign types especially since for the engine you pay for the flight hours normally) would be more efficient and less expensive.

the narrower version is still wider then the current AN-124, which means it will be purely for outsized freight and not viable for mainstream air cargo ops. I was kinda hoping that is they do build it, they would build a lifting body design. It makes a lot of sense in an airlifter with very heavy  loads.

No, the wider version will be 6.4 m, as wide as the An-124

(You can check this booklet from volga dnepr)

https://www.volga-dnepr.com/files/booklet/an-124e_final.pdf

The narrower will be around 5 m, that evidently it is the size that Volga Dnepr wants

Still not gonna be remotely as efficient as an airliner and building and certifying 2 bodies, wing boxes etc ..how many frames can VD take and at what price? Unless the Chinese order 50 frames or co produce I do not see how this undertaking can make financial sense. Can they use the tooling from the AN-124 and modify that? I read they want a composite wing? Maybe the will dovetail the CR929 development with the new plane. I suppose that may make more sense. But the MTOW of the airlifter is gonna be about 2x the CR929....

Yeah but I thought that NZ (as Australia, even if maybe a little bit less so) was part of the American military world, so orders of Russian military cargo aircrafts would be at minimum problematic...

Yes, sadly... there are some dissenting forces politically but not in the military. When we bought LAV IIIs there was a murmur in the news about BTR-90s being rather cheaper, but the government and military never really took thinks seriously.

We have long had C-130s, yet an Il-76 would be vastly more useful for us and now Il-476s would be even more useful and probably would be cheaper than what we would pay for any replacements like a C-130H or an A-400M. We would blow then next 30 years of military budget to buy one C-17...

Concerning some of the other comments, if I am not mistaken a kurganet without external protection is 3.2 meters, so in a an124 or in a Slon they could be transported in a line of 2, while the il76 could only transport them in a single line. Furthermore other equipments are too wide to be transported at all on a il 76.

Boomerang is about 35 tons and I don't expect Kurganets to be any lighter... so Il-476 would carry one. Il-76s were used to deliver upgraded T-72s recently to Serbia so it is not totally useless.

Military airlifters are NOT very good cargo planes. The AN-124 exists in a small niche market for outsize cargo. It cannot compete for regular cargo as it is too inefficient. Also you have to realize that this is including the fact the privately owned frames were acquired at post Soviet collapse fire sale prices. An airlifter built at todays costs would still be incredibly inefficient due to its massive cross sectio, have massive capital costs, and also will not have passanger traffic to subsidize its cargo ops and frequency. All the major airfreight companies use airliners to move cargo. So when you boil it down to purely military requirements, how many frames does Russia need for this type of super heavy airlifter? If they want to move freight across Russia MC-21 and CR-929 freighters would make far more sense. Even cheaper, used Airbus A330 freighter conversions.

If they don't make their own new cargo planes then what are the chances that foreign countries would veto the Russian military use of western cargo planes in operation by Russian civilian companies?

Were you asleep when HATO countries barred all Russian ships from refuelling in their ports at the hint they might be involved in Syria?

The Russian military uses cargo planes to shift cargo, but most of the time it is vehicles and equipment... the Il-76 gets plenty of use and the An-22 was heavily used too.... the An-124 does get less use, but as Russian foreign trade and links to countries beyond its borders improve its use will increasingly become more important. Much of the cargo moves by ship or train... it is just cheaper... but sometimes speed is more important than cost.

the narrower version is still wider then the current AN-124, which means it will be purely for outsized freight and not viable for mainstream air cargo ops.

The Russian military should not be planning its new aircraft based on commercial potential... that is the problem of the company that makes them...

The military will have size and weight and range requirements.

These purchases are for the military and don't have to be profitable... if there is going to be a plane they will make money on it will be a 100 ton payload capacity Il-106, together with the pair of Il-476 and Il-276 in the 60 and 20 ton payload capacity weight classes, but honestly I would like to see the Tu-330 as well in a 35 ton payload weight to carry a single Boomerang or Kurganets.

Russia has lots of air transport options, more IL-76 would be the obvious choice. The AN-124 is in a very specific super heavy catagory. How much lift of this nature do they need. Can they upgrade the existing and use them another 25 years easily? They can also convert CR929s to airlift. Commercial airlift can also be leased from China. With all the competing prioriities I do not see spending billions to buy 50 Slons as a good investment.

Obviously the larger the transport the smaller the numbers you need, so they will need a lot of the Il-276s and Il-476 sized transports, which is OK because their smaller size makes them cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate than the larger types.

With the larger aircraft however there is a flexibility too because for transport around the world a bigger aircraft can transport medium sized loads much further than a smaller lighter transport operating nearer its max weight.

Being able to fly long distances in a single hop can make things faster and cheaper... it very much depends on how well things are managed.

Their truck mounted ICBMs are about 50 tons for the missile alone... even with a really heavy truck that means they are probably less than 100 tons per vehicle... certainly not that heavy to be carried around the world in a Slon or similar aircraft...

For airlines the big planes are useful for big loads that can't be broken down easily, so the cost of flight is less important than the fact that it can do it...

Moving outsized loads is always more expensive than normal loads... but there certainly is a market and I would think a few military forces around the world would think a few large planes would be useful.

If you look at the circus that is HATO, when they turn up to a conflict every single one of them has fighter planes... when there is rarely an enemy air capacity that would require it... you would think they would get a clue and realise transport planes and inflight refuelling planes would be of more value than just sending a few more fighter planes and fighter pilots to talk shit and drink a lot.

GarryB wrote:...
If you look at the circus that is HATO, when they turn up to a conflict every single one of them has fighter planes... when there is rarely an enemy air capacity that would require it... you would think they would get a clue and realise transport planes and inflight refuelling planes would be of more value than just sending a few more fighter planes and fighter pilots to talk shit and drink a lot.

Well, most nations in NATO don't have large transport and air refueling capabilities. With the exception of those with overseas territories they only have fighter planes to police their own airspace.
Problem is NATO keeps creeping into foreign missions where it wasn't supposed to be in to begin with. As it gets used as battle thralls of the USA then the token gesture is to send a couple of fighters.
Because that's most of what they have.

New Zealand would have been better off with an Il-76 and today even more so with the Il-476, but an Il-106 it would be even better...

Even the Y-9 has longer range vs. C-130J, not to mention the Y-20. But being a part of ANZUS & of the English speaking world, the only other option is the C-2, if NZ can afford it.
 The An-124s will repeat the An-22 saga- they'll be used for many more decades, long after other planes like IL-106 & Slon appear.

VD restarts AN-124 ops:

https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2020/12/29/15717/

GarryB wrote:Obviously the larger the transport the smaller the numbers you need, so they will need a lot of the Il-276s and Il-476 sized transports, which is OK because their smaller size makes them cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate than the larger types.

With the larger aircraft however there is a flexibility too because for transport around the world a bigger aircraft can transport medium sized loads much further than a smaller lighter transport operating nearer its max weight.

Being able to fly long distances in a single hop can make things faster and cheaper... it very much depends on how well things are managed.

Their truck mounted ICBMs are about 50 tons for the missile alone... even with a really heavy truck that means they are probably less than 100 tons per vehicle... certainly not that heavy to be carried around the world in a Slon or similar aircraft...

For airlines the big planes are useful for big loads that can't be broken down easily, so the cost of flight is less important than the fact that it can do it...

Moving outsized loads is always more expensive than normal loads... but there certainly is a market and I would think a few military forces around the world would think a few large planes would be useful.

If you look at the circus that is HATO, when they turn up to a conflict every single one of them has fighter planes... when there is rarely an enemy air capacity that would require it... you would think they would get a clue and realise transport planes and inflight refuelling planes would be of more value than just sending a few more fighter planes and fighter pilots to talk shit and drink a lot.

You never really need to air transport an ICBM, and they already have this capability. If the AN-124 line was still running and they could buy them for 100M each then yes, I would say pick up another 25 planes. But building and starting the production of a whole new aircraft is a massive undertaking, especially when there many competing needs for the money. But then again Russia has been unable to spend the stimulous fund that was allocated thus far (which is why Medvedev was canned) so maybe there is spare money around.

Well, most nations in NATO don't have large transport and air refueling capabilities.

That is right, because most HATO members are self centred egos... few of them need fighters but all of them spend enormous amounts of money for that capacity.

Transport aircraft would be much more useful for HATO and for domestic reasons just use it to shift stuff around... but lets not be practical.

With the exception of those with overseas territories they only have fighter planes to police their own airspace.

There are enough HATO exercises to keep quite a few transport planes busy all year round, but only a few air forces in HATO bother to spend the cash on such force multipliers like transports and refuelling aircraft and AWACS etc etc.

It is like a party except everyone brings potato salad and expects the host to provide the booze....

Problem is NATO keeps creeping into foreign missions where it wasn't supposed to be in to begin with.

That ship sailed years ago. HATO is intended to keep the EU and Russia in a state of frozen hostility.

The An-124s will repeat the An-22 saga- they'll be used for many more decades, long after other planes like IL-106 & Slon appear.

Not with the engine issues and owner ship issues they have... as soon as viable alternatives are available Russia will start retiring their An-124s as soon as they can... the Il-106 should be able to replace the An-22 right away and also the An-124s that have been filling the role of the withdrawn An-22s.

Once Slon is on line the An-124s are gone as they get replaced.

Maybe sell them to a civilian company, but I would doubt by then that Antonov and Motor Sich will be able to support their engines by then.

They are a minefield of ownership and dead engine companies that does not need to be navigated when new Slons and Il-106s would be a much better option... the Il-106 will be a bigger more capable C-17 that is cheaper to buy and operate... that is why the US took great pains to kill the project in the 1990s.

You never really need to air transport an ICBM, and they already have this capability.

They have it now with the An-124, which is going and will be replaced with Slon. More likely smaller lighter trucks and missiles like Iskander and its replacements will need to be transported around the place... for instance to close proximity of Japan or Poland depending on the situation... and large transport is the fastest way of achieving that.

If the AN-124 line was still running and they could buy them for 100M each then yes, I would say pick up another 25 planes

Design ownership issues makes the An-124 undesirable... the same problem with all the Antonov designs... you might have noticed aircraft programmes replacing them all from the An-2, An-72, An-24/26/32, An-12, An-22, and An-124 and An-225...

Obviously the An-2 replacement and Il-276 and Il-476 will be the most widely used and mass produced, but the larger aircraft will be of value to the Russian Military and Aerospace industry...

They previously used a medium bomber to carry outsized loads externally, so it is not a weight issue, though an H tailed Slon able to carry a 120+ ton shuttle design on its back or other odd shaped objects would be valuable, though they would only need 2-3 of those, which would be in demand for certain specific jobs...

With four PD-35 or larger engines then Slon already has similar engine power to the An-225 anyway but would need an H tail to allow for turbulance created by large external loads on its back.

But building and starting the production of a whole new aircraft is a massive undertaking, especially when there many competing needs for the money.

The An-22s will be close to leaving service now if not already gone and there is only so long they can keep hoarding their An-124s for their engines.

Once the engines are ready, building a new transport is not that difficult... and will be a useful project for young engineers in Russia...

But then again Russia has been unable to spend the stimulous fund that was allocated thus far (which is why Medvedev was canned) so maybe there is spare money around.

It will likely come from the military budget, but I would expect a few exports are likely... especially for the Il-106 in a class slightly above the C-17... I would think if they were not under Russian sanction HATO would be leasing a lot of them like they used to with An-124s and Il-76s.

How many AN-22s do they have? Less then a handful AFIK, they can replace those by taking AN-124s out of storage. The frames they have still have decades of life. The questionn is, what is the need. I suppose they could build them at low rate production, 1-2 frames a year. They would have to really shrink the supply chain to be able too do this reliablity. Every 5 years do an update and also update the fleet.

The Russian Ministry of Defense was offered to resume production of An-124 "Ruslan"

The Russian Defense Ministry was offered to restore production of the An-124 Ruslan aircraft. This was reported by the press service of the military department. At a meeting in Ulyanovsk at the Aviastar-SP enterprise, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu was asked to resume production of Ruslans at the Ulyanovsk aircraft plant. During the meeting, Shoigu noted that six An-124s were repaired in 2020 and expressed the hope that Russia will be able to get the required number of serviceable aircraft.

Note that talks about resuming production of An-124 have been going on for several years. In 2018, it was reported that preparatory work had begun at Aviastar-SP for the start of production of Ruslan. The enterprise itself stated that although the production of the An-124 was discontinued in Russia in 2003, but within the framework of a deep modernization and support for the airworthiness of these aircraft, the enterprise possesses full production technology, since over the entire time the enterprise has manufactured 36 An- 124 Ruslan.

In 2019, it was reported about work on the An-124-100M with completely Russian components. At the same time, Kiev announced that the new Russian aircraft should receive a different name, since the An-124 Ruslan is a Ukrainian aircraft. It was also stated about the inability of Russia to resume production without the participation of Ukraine.

Earlier, the Russian Ministry of Defense advocated the resumption of production of Ruslans, but the head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov rejected the urgent need for this, saying that the repair of the existing An-124 fleet would allow them to be operated until 2040.

franco wrote:The Russian Ministry of Defense was offered to resume production of An-124 "Ruslan"
...
At the same time, Kiev announced that the new Russian aircraft should receive a different name, since the An-124 Ruslan is a Ukrainian aircraft...

Good

Bring on the IL-124