Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26627
    Points : 27165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:57 am

    I meant that it is not clear if they plan to start first with a updated version of the original il-106 project, with the same hold size and payload as in the preliminary design and powered (at least initially) by 4 PS-90A1 engines, or if they want to do a modernised An-124 under an Ilyushin name, powered by 4 NK23D (when and if they are ready).

    But the Il-106 was essentially an 80 ton payload direct replacement for the An-22 at a time when the An-22 was obsolete and needed replacement with no Antonov replacement and assuming things went on OK that the Antonov design company would then develop what we now know as Slon.

    With Antonov out of the picture they needed to adjust because not just An-22s need replacing now but also An-124s as well, and with development of these new more powerful engines they have scope to improve the An-124 design to a scratch build new plane.

    This means the Il-106 could be revised upwards to do the job of An-22s and very early model An-124s with 120 ton capacity... so it would replace the An-22 and also do the job of An-124s where the load is not max... which is beneficial because the Il-106 is smaller and lighter and should be cheaper than the An-124.

    But sometimes when the loads are heavy a bigger aircraft is needed so the Slon project is being stretched up to not just be a replacement for the An-124, but also potentially a replacement for the An-124 and An-225.

    There is no huge market for An-225s... it is mostly users of large outsized payloads like engines and fuel tanks and model aircraft carried on the back of the aircraft.

    The thing is that with four PD-35s they could make standard tail aircraft for the general purpose roles, but also 4-5 perhaps with an H tail with its back redesigned to allow payloads carried on its back.

    For really bulky un-aerodynamic loads they could use an enormous fairing and use real brute force... four PD-50 engines....


    The important point is that the production of either airplane in Ulyanovsk should not compromise the production of il76.

    Totally agree... they need the Il-476 rather more than they need smaller or heavier aircraft... for those questioning if an Il-76 can carry tanks I see in the Serbian thread https://www.russiadefence.net/t207p150-serbian-armed-forces that they are delivering Upgraded T-72 tanks to Serbia via Il-76 aircraft, so they are used to transport tanks gradually.

    Anyway, already the availability of a 80 tons payload il106 with 6 m wide cargo hold will make it the largest military cargo in production worldwide, and remove a lot of workload from the existing An-124.

    And would be a very desirable transport plane for export I would suspect considering the only alternative is the C-17 which is eye wateringly expensive... I am just sad we have a government with its head up Americas ass because an 80 ton payload aircraft with strategic range would be ideal for us... right now we use C-130s which are more expensive than Il-76s but also slower, lower flying, and much shorter ranged.

    With Il-106 aircraft we could visit out Pacific Neighbours without island hopping to refuel with useful payload weights... in fact instead of using up their supplies of expensive fuel we could deliver fuel supplies to them for a change...

    Actually this should be probably the best initial option, as the PS-90A1 engines exists and are used also on the Il96-400M, so it would not be delayed by engines or other equipment availability. The only "annoying" part is to design and theb produce two different wings, one with 4 engines for the present and one with 2 PD35 for late 2020s

    You don't have to redesign them... but you would have to put up with less impressive performance.

    New wings is actually a common upgrade for aircraft... the Tu-95 got upgraded wing designs in the late 1970s for the Tu-142 and was further upgraded for the Tu-95s in use today that were made in the 1980s and 1990s... the Il-76 got new wings a couple of times to improve performance...

    In fact they could have two standards... the Il-106 with four PS90 engines for domestic use and export with an 80 ton payload which will be rather useful and handy.... give it lots of high lift devices on the wings and rugged undercarriage for rough air strips... and then in 5 years time the Il-106M with a new wing and two PD35 engines to expand the payload capacity to 110 tons and probably extend range a bit for domestic use to start with and for export to key allies perhaps.

    They could do something similar with Slon where they have the Il-xxx with normal tail and fuselage for An-124 replacement, and a T model with an H tail and modified body and back to allow large loads to be placed on the back of the aircraft...

    Prior to 1943, the USSR used gliders & converted bombers to haul cargo before it produced C-47-derived Li-2s under license, which led to IL-12/14/18/62/86/96s. China used Antonov's help to design & produce her Y-8/9/20s. Turkey has to start somewhere.

    The Soviets were licence producing DC-2s and DC-3s in the 1930s. They used converted bombers and gliders in the role because they were no longer effective in their original role.

    they may need more, & also export them to non-EU nations.

    They ordered 10 A-400Ms... not 100... if they do need more it wont be enough to justify the time and money that would need to be spent to make it happen.

    For any customer Chinese or Russian transports will be cheaper and a more realistic prospect of actually being made.

    Turkey will want to earn $ independently of them, so they won't undermine their own products by creating a competitor.

    Countries that traditionally buy from Russia or China wont buy from Turkey, and countries Turkey can sell aircraft to traditionally would not consider Russian or Chinese made aircraft either... there is no overlap so there is no competition...

    Besides, Ukraine will offer a better deal- like they did with ex-Varyag, CMs & other arms they sold around the world.

    Those sales were possible because they already had the product.... they didn't have to make any more so even getting a dollar for the things was still a good deal for the Ukraine because maintenance costs for aircraft carriers is tens of thousands of dollars a year...

    The Ukraine is only a viable partner if they can prove they can make the product in the numbers needed in the time available for the amount of money customers are prepared to invest in the project... there is no evidence they could do it even if they had the money and they don't have the money...

    So if turkey and or ukraine want to build an airplane (of any kind) they need to import parts from either US, China, Russia, or from a bunch of EU nations.

    True... and the obvious problem there is that any plane they do make will be in direct competition to the A-400M... which likely means EU sanctions on any country that takes part and extreme hostile attitude from EU and EU partner states... they wont want Turkey spending billions making an alternative to the A-400M, they want Turkey spending trillions buying more A-400Ms...

    Turkey will be buying foreign made & developing her own aircraft just like USSR & the PRC did; putting all eggs in 1 basket may be cheaper but more risky. Thus, it's worth investing in its own industry instead of supporting some1 else's.

    Building their own transport planes will get them kicked out of the EU industry and market... that would cost them rather more than anything they could save on a joint venture or even just buying off the shelf.

    So, if they should fall from american grace, they may have problems in completing additional aircrafts.

    Only a matter of time I suspect if BRICS continues, but lets face it... KRET can fill the Avionics gap and a new family of related engines would be as good for Brazil as it will be for Russian aircraft... they will be able to use a suitable engine size for any job...

    The KC390 competes with the C-130J, & so far no problems for future sales .

    So far, but if Brazil does not keep sucking up to the US then problems can occur... sanctions on aircraft is low hanging fruit that US senators can choose to hurt Brazil... even if the president of the time doesn't want to damage relations.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4886
    Points : 4882
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:17 pm

    The Soviets were license producing DC-2s and DC-3s in the 1930s.

    No, they didn't build any DC-2/3s then, only from 1940 onward. 

    Countries that traditionally buy from Russia or China wont buy from Turkey, and countries Turkey can sell aircraft to traditionally would not consider Russian or Chinese made aircraft either...

    Nations in Africa, SE Asia & L. America may not want to buy transports from Russia & China for political reasons, esp. if Turkish/Ukrainian An-77/188s can perform better than the KC-390, C-130J or Y-8/9.
    It's not a zero-sum game as with Airbus-Boeing duopoly.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26627
    Points : 27165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:36 am

    It took two years to convert the design to metric.

    The Soviet Union received its first DC-2 in 1935. A total of 18 DC-3s had been ordered on 11 April 1936, and the government of the USSR purchased 21 DC-3s for operation by Aeroflot before World War II. A production license was awarded to the government of the USSR on 15 July 1936. Lisunov spent two years at the Douglas Aircraft Company, between November 1936 and April 1939 translating the design. One of the engineers who accompanied him to Douglas was Vladimir Mikhailovich Myasishchev. Design work and production were undertaken at State Aviation Factory 84 in Khimki (now a suburb of Moscow).[5] The Soviet version was given the designation PS-84 – Passazhirskiy Samolyot 84, passenger airplane 84 (i.e. made in GAZ/State Plant No. 84).

    Nations in Africa, SE Asia & L. America may not want to buy transports from Russia & China for political reasons, esp. if Turkish/Ukrainian An-77/188s can perform better than the KC-390, C-130J or Y-8/9.

    The risk seems to be pretty clear... Ukraine is burning any good will they had from former soviet equipment operators when they screw them...
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1244
    Points : 1242
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:14 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Countries that traditionally buy from Russia or China wont buy from Turkey, and countries Turkey can sell aircraft to traditionally would not consider Russian or Chinese made aircraft either...

    Nations in Africa, SE Asia & L. America may not want to buy transports from Russia & China for political reasons, esp. if Turkish/Ukrainian An-77/188s can perform better than the KC-390, C-130J or Y-8/9.
    It's not a zero-sum game as with Airbus-Boeing duopoly.

    Again, if they do produce wings, fuselage and other structural parts, who provides all the rest?

    Even if you accept that they could use 4 D-436 engines (the same one as in the An-148/An-178 and basically the only turbofan for transport or passenger jet produced currently by the ukraine), which is probably too small for it as it has between 7 and 8 tons of thrust according to the version, so it would need a decrease in payload and dimensions (there was a proposed derivative with 11,5 tons of thrust, but was never realised), you only solved the engine problem (with a compromise, of course)

    What about all of the other equipments and components?

    Antonov planes used to have about 50% of the parts and systems produced in Russia. Turkey cannot help with those. They can of course try to have suppliers from the EU, US or China design and provide systems for it, but it is not anymore an independent solution... actually a potential buyer will have to be even more wary, as there are many more nations that could hamper the sale...

    If they buy from Russia or China at least there are no other countries involved.

    Sponsored content

    Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA) - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:54 am