Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

What other engine could they use?

the same engines used on Il-76MD-90A: PS-90s could be on smaller, & PD-14s on basic IL-106s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviadvigatel_PS-90
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviadvigatel_PD-14

Most of their fighter jet aircraft are twin engined so what sort of safety or design issues are you expecting?
They are planning to replace the four engines on the Il-96 with these new engines and they only need two.

It'll be more safety in #s; a large cargo plane better have 2 extra engines- if any 2 go out, 2 will remain to complete or abort the mission w/o crashing.

The danger there is that funding to get them air worthy might disappear into pockets and on to Swiss bank accounts and the aircraft might not be as reliable as they hope...

AFAIK they r airworthy now & well maintained. Ther r also plenty of KC-10 Extenders/MD-11Fs/B-747-400Fs that can lift 77,110kg/90,787kg/112,760kg/124,330kg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_KC-10_Extender#KC-10_Extender

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-11#Variants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#747-400F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#747-400ERF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Operators

the same engines used on Il-76MD-90A: PS-90s could be on smaller, & PD-14s on basic IL-106s.

You understand what you are saying? The most powerful model PS-90s are about 16 tons thrust and are used on the 62 ton capacity Il-476 aircraft, but you think the Il-106 could operate with 4 x 14 ton thrust engines??? When the original Il-76 (40-45 ton payload) has 12 ton thrust engines and the upgraded Il-476 with a 62 ton payload capacity has 4 x 16 ton thrust engines that the Il-106 with a payload capacity to replace the An-22 with an 80 ton capacity, so the Il-106 will need to be at least 80-90 ton capacity and could be 100-110 ton capacity only need four 14 ton thrust engines to do the job?

Really?

The Il-106 would need at the very least four 24 ton thrust engines which would give it a thrust margin of safety, but two 35 ton thrust engines would probably work too.

It'll be more safety in #s; a large cargo plane better have 2 extra engines- if any 2 go out, 2 will remain to complete or abort the mission w/o crashing.

Many things that will disable an engine like lack of fuel or fuel system failure will cause all engines to fail so having extra engines wont help.

Max engine thrust is only ever used on take off... for the Il-76 that means four 12 ton thrust D-30KP engines operating at full power, but in normal cruise flight it will be running those engines at about 2 tons thrust each... if it looses one engine in flight the other engines don't need to replace 12 tons thrust... they just have to replace 2 tons thrust and a big of extra drag from the engine that wont be running... you can't feather a jet engine to minimise its drag.

AFAIK they r airworthy now & well maintained.

So you say, but how long can that last?

I am sure they will want to give the US extra value for money for all America has done for the Ukraine... they really owe them big time... saving them from the evil Ruskies...

Garry the huge difference between takeoff thrust and cruise thrust is due to much lower air density at cruise altitude (at 33000feet, typical altitude for jet airliners the air pressure is less than one fourth than the sea level value.

Yes, at take-off the engines are pushed much more and and the various spools rotate at higher speed, but the difference between N1 and N2 values (low pressure spool and high pressure spool) at Cruise and take-off is not that big.

..the Il-106 with a payload capacity to replace the An-22 with an 80 ton capacity, so the Il-106 will need to be at least 80-90 ton capacity

IMO, different versions of the Slon may replace both the An-22s & An-124s. The IL-106, if it appears, doesn't necessarily need to be capable of lifting that much; if it can match the C-17, it will be just as good.

Many things that will disable an engine like lack of fuel or fuel system failure will cause all engines to fail so having extra engines wont help.

bird strikes & hostile action/foreign object damage can & do occur often all over the world. Long over water/Siberia/ FE flights with no or few airfields to divert to is another factor.

So you say, but how long can that last?

If need be, every specialized C-130 can also be converted to cargo version; buying/leasing 10 A-400Ms would=3 C-5s in payload. The US friends operating them &/ C-130s/17s can also help with airlift.

Garry the huge difference between takeoff thrust and cruise thrust is due to much lower air density at cruise altitude (at 33000feet, typical altitude for jet airliners the air pressure is less than one fourth than the sea level value.

Not really... the need for high take off thrust is to get the object moving... once something is moving it takes a lot less energy to keep it moving... a stationary object has no momentum but if you expend a lot of energy to start it moving the only energy you need to apply to keep it moving is the energy to counter the drag trying to slow it down... of course bigger heavier aircraft like transports have rather more drag than slim sleek fighter types.

If you think about it... using a jet engine is a very inefficient way of propelling a vehicle... sit on an office chair with wheels on it and try to use a hair dryer to move around and you will see what I mean. Proper jet engines however can be very powerful, but are made more powerful in thinner colder air at high altitude.

If you want to fly at top speed at altitude then you have to operate at full power, but when you are cruising long distances you can reduce the throttle and also the fuel burn and take longer to get there.

IMO, different versions of the Slon may replace both the An-22s & An-124s. The IL-106, if it appears, doesn't necessarily need to be capable of lifting that much; if it can match the C-17, it will be just as good.

The C-17 is not really relevant in this discussion... the Soviet and Russian equivalent of the C-17 is the An-22... it was necessary in the US inventory because the C-141 (Il-76) couldn't carry an Abrams tank. The Russians don't have any 70 ton tanks so it is not relevant... the T-14 is reportedly about 45-46 tons so the Il-476 would be fine for that role of moving them around fairly cheaply and easily.

If the Slon, with four PD-35 engines is going to be a 180 capacity transport then they are going to need something in between the Slon and the Il-476... so something between 60 tons and 180 tons capacity. The An-22 carried 80 tons and was considered a rather useful aircraft so it would make a lot of sense to look at the slot it filled... the Il-76 was a 40 ton payload capacity aircraft and is being replaced or upgraded to 60 tons with the Il-476. The An-124 was a 120 ton payload capacity aircraft and is being replaced by an aircraft with a 180 ton capacity... which is one Il-476 more (60 ton more). I would think they are thinking that if the An-124 was useful as both an aircraft on its own and as a replacement for the An-22 that the ideal capacity is probably between the An-22 and the An-124... that is perhaps 90-110 tons... maybe 100 tons normal capacity and 110-120 with reduced fuel and reduced flight range (though with inflight refuelling that wouldn't be an issue).

The bigger the aircraft the more expensive it is to operate so by making it slightly smaller than an An-124 you make it cheaper to run... especially if the new engines are more fuel efficient and more reliable... maintenance on two engines instead of four is a real bonus in terms of operational costs and down times.

There is leeway as used in the PAK DA... you can make it a long range transport (strategic) with a lighter (nuclear) load, or a shorter range transport (theatre) with a heavy payload (conventional) for conventional warfare.

If they have both the Il-476, the Il-106, and the Slon then they will have plenty of flexibility and options... an H tailed Slon could be used for the Space forces.

bird strikes & hostile action/foreign object damage can & do occur often all over the world.

Generally near the ground, so therefore on take off or landing...

Long over water/Siberia/ FE flights with no or few airfields to divert to is another factor.

The crew will be issued with parachutes... loss of an engine doesn't normally result in an immediate crash except on take off...

If need be, every specialized C-130 can also be converted to cargo version; buying/leasing 10 A-400Ms would=3 C-5s in payload. The US friends operating them &/ C-130s/17s can also help with airlift.

But how do they carry 1/3rd of an Abrams? Many military vehicles in the US military were intended for carriage on C-17s or C-5s and smaller aircraft just can't manage them... they have to go by ship. (most armour moved around the world actually goes by ship anyway... that is why Desert Storm took 6 months to start the ground campaign... that is how long it took to assemble and ship the vehicles needed as well as the ammo and fuel etc etc).

..the ideal capacity is probably between the An-22 and the An-124... that is perhaps 90-110 tons...

that would be a luxury they may not be a high priority that they'll be able to afford anytime soon.

..by making it slightly smaller than an An-124 you make it cheaper to run...

the existing An-22s/124s could be re-engined & used as a stop gap.

Generally near the ground, so therefore on take off or landing...

even so, having extra 2-3 engines can make a difference between a crash & safe landing.

The crew will be issued with parachutes... loss of an engine doesn't normally result in an immediate crash except on take off...

not when carrying a heavy valuable load that they would rather not lose.

..they have to go by ship. ..that is why Desert Storm took 6 months to start the ground campaign...

exactly, but there r other lighter vehicles/helos/drones/gear/weapons/ammo/materials that must be delivered from the CONUS & between bases, & that's why they reactivated 8 C-5s.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
the existing An-22s/124s could be re-engined & used as a stop gap.

As far as I remember reading the current An-22 in Russia service are quite long in the tooth and have been quite extensively used, so they do not have much life left.

I believe only a few 5 or 6 are still in service, but only half of them are airworthy and will be used for another decade or so, but quite sparingly.

Engines for them are available but the aircraft structural parts do not have that many cycles left in them, basically the opposite problem to the An-124

that would be a luxury they may not be a high priority that they'll be able to afford anytime soon.

Not a luxury at all... the kept using the An-22 long after it should have been scrapped because it was a useful aircraft that was cheaper to operate than much bigger aircraft like the An-124, but able to carry a more useful payload than an Il-76.

They have plenty of experience with An-22, An-124s and Il-76s etc and know what they want... the fact that the replacement for the An-124 suggests they want something with more carrying capacity, but the added capacity comes at a cost of increased operational costs so an aircraft that is lighter also makes sense as a cheaper numbers aircraft that can be more widely used.

the existing An-22s/124s could be re-engined & used as a stop gap.

No they can't be. The engines you would use to re engine them are the engines that are delaying their replacements, so they are not available and when they become available it makes more sense just to make Il-106s and Slons instead.... they will scrap the An-22 and likely reengine the An-124s because they are relatively new...

even so, having extra 2-3 engines can make a difference between a crash & safe landing.

Not really... having too much excess power means low fuel economy and shorter range generally.

not when carrying a heavy valuable load that they would rather not lose.

I doubt they want to lose the plane either, but crashes sometimes happen.

Engines for them are available but the aircraft structural parts do not have that many cycles left in them, basically the opposite problem to the An-124

From what I have read the An-22 is a useful aircraft... not too expensive, and good payload size... that is why in the cash strapped 1990s they developed the Il-106 to replace it.

they kept using the An-22 long after it should have been scrapped

if it was able to be kept in the air so far to do a job, then it's time hasn't come yet to go to the boneyards to be scrapped.

an aircraft that is lighter also makes sense as a cheaper numbers aircraft that can be more widely used.

cheaper & faster to restart An-22 production under a different name; also IL-476s could be given fuselage plugs to increase payload by ~10T or more, instead of creating the IL-106 white elephant that may delay the Slon (no pun intended) production.

The engines you would use to re engine them are the engines that are delaying their replacements,

An-22s can be given modernized engines also used on Tu-95/142s.

Not really... having too much excess power means low fuel economy and shorter range generally.

after takeoff, 2 outer engines can be turned off or put on low power setting to save fuel.

that is why in the cash strapped 1990s they developed the Il-106 to replace it.

on paper only, even if it's a completed design; now it has to be re-designed, since many things have changed.

if it was able to be kept in the air so far to do a job, then it's time hasn't come yet to go to the boneyards to be scrapped.

They are getting old... once they have replacements in service there is no reason to keep using them... check the engines and maybe use them on Bears if they are still in good condition, but otherwise get rid of them.

cheaper & faster to restart An-22 production under a different name;

Not even closer to faster or cheaper... slower and much much more expensive. It would take 5 years just to digitise the design, and then perhaps another 3-4 years updating the design... so it would be 2030 by the time you could get anything new into service and by then the PAK DA will be in production and the Bears will be being withdrawn so those engines are no longer around too.

The An-22 should be retired and set up as gate guards at new airfields across the far east and far north, but not used as transports.

also IL-476s could be given fuselage plugs to increase payload by ~10T or more, instead of creating the IL-106 white elephant that may delay the Slon (no pun intended) production.

The Il-106 was pretty much a finished design it would probably be easier to set up production for it than to do anything else... except to do nothing... which does not solve their problem of replacing the An-22. At least it is a much newer aircraft design.

An-22s can be given modernized engines also used on Tu-95/142s.

Not worth it for an aircraft that wont be in service much longer.

after takeoff, 2 outer engines can be turned off or put on low power setting to save fuel.

Large jet engines are expensive... the PS-90A engines on the Il-76 were 6 million each... compared with about 800K for the D-30Ks they replaced. 3.2 million vs 24 million for engines. These new engines wont be cheap either... you are just adding expense for something that might never happen for more than 99 out of 100 aircraft of the fleet.

on paper only, even if it's a completed design; now it has to be re-designed, since many things have changed.

That is a good thing... a chance to add improvements in the design are always cheaper before you start making them.

Leaving it till you have already built 300 like they are doing with the F-35 is totally the worst way to develop a new product.

The Il-106 was pretty much a finished design it would probably be easier to set up production for it than to do anything else...

It even will be cheaper/easier to make some more IL-476s & use An-124s &/ Slons for outsize loads like helos, UAVs, vehicles, tanks, S-300/400s, Pantsir S-1s, BMs, boats, construction equipment, generators, etc.
OTH, a slow rate production of renewed An-22s & their engines is still possible if it's justified & feasible; some could be exported for profit &/ used commercially. Time will tell!

Tsavo Lion wrote:
A slow rate production of renewed An-22s & their engines is still possible if it's justified; some could be exported for profit &/ used commercially. Time will tell!

If it was still in production at a Russian plant, yes, it would make sense.. Since it has not been produced for ages, restarting the production would mean repeating all the effort that has been needed to bring the production of il76 in Ulyanovsk.

That is also one of the reasons they do continue to order Il96, even if with a very slow rate of production. Once you stop it, it is very expensive to restart.

And for a product not assembled in that plant and with old analogic design... Well good luck...from a cost effectiveness point of view it would be only worth if they were planning to build at least a dozen aircraft a year for several years...

They could still order a civilian version of it from Ukraine & then modify them. 1 An-22 was recently refurbished there.
The AN-22 Antei, the largest turboprop air freighter in the world, can be operated from and to both paved, and unpaved runways, and with transports such as this one, the AN-22 can be more effective than the larger AN-124 Ruslan.
http://handyshippingguide.com/shipping-news/some-small-items-of-logistics-news-from-around-the-globe_12443

https://ajot.com/news/antonov-airlines-n-22-antei-returns-to-commercial-market-with-project-for-dsv-spain-and-cargoplanet-spain

Tsavo Lion wrote:They could still order a civilian version of it from Ukraine & then modify them. 1 An-22 was recently refurbished there.
The AN-22 Antei, the largest turboprop air freighter in the world, can be operated from and to both paved, and unpaved runways, and with transports such as this one, the AN-22 can be more effective than the larger AN-124 Ruslan.
http://handyshippingguide.com/shipping-news/some-small-items-of-logistics-news-from-around-the-globe_12443

https://ajot.com/news/antonov-airlines-n-22-antei-returns-to-commercial-market-with-project-for-dsv-spain-and-cargoplanet-spain

Ukraine has no chances of producing the aircraft.

The same problems that Russia has would exist for them, with the addition that they do not have anymore an aviation industry, it would be like asking Lufthansa maintenance to build an airbus A320.


Being able of refurbishing an aircraft doesn't mean that they have capability to produce a new one.

In addition, as I was writing before, Russia has still a few an22 left and more in reserve that could be refurbished and put back to service in case of emergency, but unless they really do not have any other chance, it is probably not worth since they were extensively used and allegedly do not have many cycles left before they start having fatigue problems.

They will not be used for civilian cargo, so they will  not have many problems with airworthiness certificates, however suffering plane crashes and losing people and military cargo because they try to use them after their useful life is expired (I am not talking about how many years do they have, the problem is how extensively the aircraft were used in all these years) would not be that positive...

I do not have the usage data about them, however, so, if instead they have enough cycles left in them, they could be refurbished and used for another 10 years or so.

Ukraine has no chances of producing the aircraft.

if the tooling was preserved, they could produce it.
AFAIK, the modernized An-22 has even more market potential than the An-188.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Ukraine has no chances of producing the aircraft.

if the tooling was preserved, they could. The An-22 has even more market potential than the An-188.

only the prototype was build in Kiev.
Serial production was organized in Uzbekistan, and anyway the last one was produced in 1976, 43 years ago.
Probably half of the suppliers do not exist anymore or have not been producing replacement parts for decades.

Even with drawings available for the aircraft many parts would need to be redesigned or reverse engineered.

Yes, it can be done, but it would probably take more time than to build from scratch a new design that would include from the beginning modern solutions and modern and existing suppliers.

Remember how much time and cost was necessary for Russia to start producing at aviastar the il76, and they had the full support of the former producing plant and the supply chain was never interrupted.

Think about Airbus, they know that the A380 is dead because without new orders they will have to stop production. A couple of years after you stop production, restarting it will have a significant cost, 5 years later it would be very difficult and extremely expensive, 40 years later it will cost more than the initial cost of production.

Using the design solution there to influence a new design would be one thing, restarting production not really, also because to be effective design and manufacturing teams have to work in conjunction and they have to take into account each other capabilities and costs.

China instead could be interested, since they are not yet capable to design and produce something similar, so for them the effort, even if incredibly expensive and time consuming, could be worth.

Yes, it can be done, but it would probably take more time than to build from scratch a new design that would include from the beginning modern solutions and modern and existing suppliers.

it may still be worth it since it's a proven design & time will be saved updating the design & testing it. Perhaps the closed plant in Tashkent had/still has the tooling.
Also, if more An-22s r built, less An-124s/Slons/IL-476/106s & their engines will be needed. Specialized tanker/CM/UAV carrier/amphibious/water bomber variants could be built.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Yes, it can be done, but it would probably take more time than to build from scratch a new design that would include from the beginning modern solutions and modern and existing suppliers.

it may still be worth it since it's a proven design & time will be saved updating the design & testing it. Perhaps the closed plant in Tashkent had/still has the tooling.
Also, if more An-22s r built, less An-124s/Slons/IL-476/106s & their engines will be needed. Specialized tanker/CM/UAV carrier/amphibious/water bomber variants could be built.

He's dead, Jim.

It even will be cheaper/easier to make some more IL-476s & use An-124s &/ Slons for outsize loads like helos, UAVs, vehicles, tanks, S-300/400s, Pantsir S-1s, BMs, boats, construction equipment, generators, etc.

They are not going to need an enormous number of Il-106 or Slon aircraft, but they certainly need to start making some... the 60 ton Il-476 will be hard pressed to replace the existing Il-76 aircraft it needs to replace let alone the 100 odd An-70s they were going to buy for the VDV but clearly are not getting now... so the idea they could make a few extra instead of an An-22 replacement or to supplant An-124 numbers doesn't make sense... they are too small for a start anyway.

Most vehicles would be better moved by Rail or ship anyway... it is not faster but is much cheaper...

OTH, a slow rate production of renewed An-22s & their engines is still possible if it's justified & feasible;

It is not justified or feasible... the An-22 was a useful aircraft but it is old and has not been in production the last 40 odd years.... they need a replacement... they developed a replacement.... they are about to put the replacement into production... and while they are doing that the An-124s they have in service can do the job, though not as efficiently... which is why they need replacement.

They could still order a civilian version of it from Ukraine & then modify them.

The Ukraine would be in a vastly worse position to be able to make the aircraft... Russia could easily afford it if it was necessary... Ukraine can't even make the new planes they are making let alone an old plane they are not.

if the tooling was preserved, they could produce it.

Why would the tooling for a plane that has not been produced for 40 years be preserved in the Ukraine?

When the oligarchs sold everything in the 1990s and again in 2014... what possible reason would they have for keeping the tooling to make ancient transport planes they don't have any engines for?

AFAIK, the modernized An-22 has even more market potential than the An-188.

With modern engines it might, but I would say both are beyond the capacity of the Ukraine... note the An-188 doesn't use props because they don't have the skills to make the props...

Even with drawings available for the aircraft many parts would need to be redesigned or reverse engineered.

At the very least digitised... which will cost millions and take 4-8 years...

it may still be worth it since it's a proven design & time will be saved updating the design & testing it.

Not for Russia because they wont be using a Ukrainian design no matter what happens. And also they will soon have the Il-106 which will be a much better performing aircraft.

The Ukraine can't afford to fund it on their own.

The US already has the C-17 and would not want cheap competition for that from any other country.

Surely the Chinese have a copy of the C-17 for their own use already or at the design stage...

And Europe wont buy it from the Ukraine... why would they?

Also, if more An-22s r built, less An-124s/Slons/IL-476/106s & their engines will be needed.

The number of An-22s built will be unrelated to the number of Slons and Il-476s and Il-106s built... Russia wont be buying any An-22s no matter who makes them.

Specialized tanker/CM/UAV carrier/amphibious/water bomber variants could be built.

If such aircraft are needed Russia has a range of types they could base such aircraft on that are not about to be retired and scrapped.

With new computers they can design an aircraft that is easily 10 times better, carries more, longer range for less consumption ...

X2... and with new engines they will actually be 10 times better...

the 60 ton Il-476 will be hard pressed to replace the existing Il-76 aircraft it needs to replace let alone the 100 odd An-70s they were going to buy for the VDV..

they r modernizing many older IL-76s, & intend to increase IL-476 orders anyway; only some 40 An-70s were needed.

Ukraine can't even make the new planes they are making let alone an old plane they are not.

so which 1 is it-r they making them or not, according to u?

Tsavo Lion wrote:

the 60 ton Il-476 will be hard pressed to replace the existing Il-76 aircraft it needs to replace let alone the 100 odd An-70s they were going to buy for the VDV..

they r modernizing many older IL-76s, & intend to increase IL-476 orders anyway; only some 40 An-70s were needed.

Ukraine can't even make the new planes they are making let alone an old plane they are not.

so which 1 is it-r they making them or not, according to u?

he means the airplanes designed in the last 20 years that they are currently planning to sell and that for which they are looking for foreign investors and partners to substitute all the Russian parts( an-70, an 132, an178), for which only a prototype was built till now. Furthermore now they can't even build an140 or an148/an158.

Thinking that they could build alone an an-22 is science fiction

Thinking that they could build alone an an-22 is science fiction

well, as was duly noted, China may need them & could invest into restarting production there, so her plants can continue building Y-20s & also An-124s under license.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2019/1121/Ukraine-in-play-How-Chinese-investments-change-the-game

they r modernizing many older IL-76s, & intend to increase IL-476 orders anyway; only some 40 An-70s were needed.

The VDV wanted 100... there were no immediate other customers... they would never have bothered to design it if they were only going to make 40.

well, as was duly noted, China may need them & could invest into restarting production there, so her plants can continue building Y-20s & also An-124s under license.

Yeah, the Russians dreamed they could sell weapons to all those new NATO countries or that China or India would save them... and orders from China and India did help out a few Russian companies... but it was no charity... they didn't buy anything they didn't need, and they certainly got a very good price for what they did buy...

So now the Orcs think China will save them or was that Turkey with the article about the An-188... but the Orcs are US puppets... China wont look for long term cooperation... they will buy up what they can and move on... and given the choice between cooperation with Ukraine or Russia I think Turkey will see more of a future with Russia to be honest... Russia wont care but I suspect the Ukraine would object to cooperating with Turkey when Turkey cooperates with Russia.

Or perhaps that is it... the US might try to use Ukraine as a trojan horse to lure Turkey away from Russia... but with gas deals I doubt it.

https://www.arms-expo.ru/news/novye-razrabotki/reshenie-po-vyboru-kontseptsii-srednego-voenno-transportnogo-samoleta-dlya-minoborony-rf-otlozhili-d/

"The projects will be defended at the end of November, after which the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the Ministry of Defense will make a final decision on the choice of a design bureau that will create an average transporter,

Before the end of the year there will be the decision on which project will continue, Tu 330 or Il 276.
Honestly, I find the Tupulev the more interesting of the two platforms.