Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Tsavo Lion wrote:..half a billion dollars for one C-17,..
Unit cost US$218M (flyaway cost for FY 2007)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III
It is true that it was a production fsctory for Mc Donnell Douglas and boeing only inherited with their acquisition of their former rival. They could have produced something else st that plant... this is almost so stupid as the russian destruction of Saratov Aircraft plant.
M-60 by Myasischev...it was talked about as one of the candidates for the PAK-TA
GarryB wrote:
M-60 by Myasischev...it was talked about as one of the candidates for the PAK-TA
They would need to be exceptionally powerful engines, and their location would make maintenance and just general engine access a pain in the ass.
Simple clean design though.
It would be a pain for the maintenance crew, but ultimately be more safe for them as that the engines are located above the fuselage and it makes it harder for them to be accidentally sucked in and shredded up by the jet engine.
GarryB wrote:It would be a pain for the maintenance crew, but ultimately be more safe for them as that the engines are located above the fuselage and it makes it harder for them to be accidentally sucked in and shredded up by the jet engine.
Well I see what you mean, by safety you mean people on the ground near the aircraft with engines running... you don't normally do maintenance on aircraft while their engines are running, that is just not safe practise.
Those images of flying wings are interesting, but my favourite is one shown on the TSAGI wind tunnels with a tail section that had the engines mounted on it with horizontal tail surfaces angled up at 45 degrees I think from memory...
The main hurdle is western stereotypes about Russian aircraft and whether a radical new design would be accepted.
I do not think it would make sense to invest in foreign platforms based on outdated engines.Tsavo Lion wrote:Can China help Russia to create the IL-106 transport?
..if the Ukrainian Motor Sich redeems China, then in the future there is a chance to acquire the D-18T , but not from Ukraine, but from the Chinese owner . Then the new STVTS of Russia - “IL-106” will appear and fly . Let UEC then make at least PD-18, at least “RF Product”. In the meantime, only optimistic promises from the leadership of the domestic aviation industry about new domestic engines are heard .
In the meantime, only optimistic promises from the leadership of the domestic aviation industry about new domestic engines are heard .
GarryB wrote:Note post regarding Il-96 moved to civil aviation thread:
https://www.russiadefence.net/t7724p575-russian-civil-aviation-news-3
As I was saying:
Though relatively low-density, the existing An-124 fleet has clearly proven its worth and would seem to support the idea that developing a replacement is a worthwhile expenditure of limited time and funds. The wind tunnel model at TsAGI indicates that Russia is definitely moving ahead with at least one program to develop a successor design.
The only reason to replace the An-124s is their engines are Ukrainian and their designs are Ukrainian too...
it can carry ~25-30T less, but other upgrades r being made & they have 7 more of them-12 active, 14 reserve & 26 civ.=53 An-124s vs. ~52 active+8 reserve=60 C-5Ms:the Galaxy is terrible and they know it...
there's another reason: the Slon will have 30T more payload & longer range.
it can carry ~25-30T less, but other upgrades r being made & they have 7 more of them-12 active,
if need be, the C-17s could be stretched like C-141s were. Trump &/ his successor will pull out Ks of troops from Europe & Korea, so the C-5s r not going to be that essential anymore.The Galaxy is in need of replacement with nothing in sight...
they'll be used for decades more, just like the An-22s & IL-76TD/MDs...the An-124 is a much better aircraft and only needs replacing because of the design rights are foreign to Russia now,..
Since it is supposed to have the An-124 cargo hold dimensions, it would be at least as big as the An-124.The only thing we know for sure is that they will reuse the designation il-106, and that will be a different aircraft from the one that should have been built in the 90s
For the Il-106, It Is not clear at all if it will be an aircraft smaller than the an-124, a modernised an-124 with modern Russian components and Russian engines or the Slon.
The only thing we know for sure is that they will reuse the designation il-106, and that will be a different aircraft from the one that should have been built in the 90s
if need be, the C-17s could be stretched like C-141s were.
Trump &/ his successor will pull out Ks of troops from Europe & Korea, so the C-5s r not going to be that essential anymore.
they'll be used for decades more, just like the An-22s & IL-76TD/MDs.
Since it is supposed to have the An-124 cargo hold dimensions, it would be at least as big as the An-124.
I doubt they'll do it for safety & design reasons. Easier to have 4 engine planes in basic, stretched &/ super stretched/shortened versions with different engines like the IL-76 has...the possibility of having a twin engined Il-106 with two PD-35s which could easily replace the An-22 but could also probably carry heavier loads as well,..
they r, but the existing planes can be stretched as all C-141s were. They may even buy some A-400Ms to boost the C-5/17/130J fleet.Haven't they stopped production yet?
the existing fleet is enough. If need be, the Antonov Airlines has 7 An-124s that could be chartered/leased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_Airlines#FleetYeah, America is going to stop fighting all round the world and are not going to need C-5s and aircraft carriers... or guns...
I doubt they'll do it for safety & design reasons. Easier to have 4 engine planes in basic, stretched &/ super stretched/shortened versions with different engines like the IL-76 has.
the existing fleet is enough. If need be, the Antonov Airlines has 7 An-124s that could be chartered/leased
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
