…

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af8/My-Military-Photos/PRC/Sea/CV-CVN/CV16_13.jpg
http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af8/My-Military-Photos/PRC/Sea/CV-CVN/CV16_14.jpg

Looks very good.
Any news on the aircraft trials or even any speculation of any purchases from Russia?

The bort nr. looks like one of the SMT.. but i was not aware that the SMT used the UPG humpback designed fuel tank..?

C’mon man…. that, sort of, ugly humpback first came on SMT and UPG just borrowed it.

Algeria should have ordered higher number of SMTs and Russia should have only provided the best of the upgrades. Atleast that way Russia AF would have got good number of multi-role operational MiG-29s.

Yes, it is definitely a squeeze, with mid-size business jet equivalent headroom, but nonetheless all 300 would be seated properly and have adequate emergency evacuation routes.

I hope these are 300 troops and not paratroopers?
I could not see any stairs from the pic you posted. It has to be to the front of the cargo bay. If the troops do not have a passage to the down floor, the exit will require dedicated mobile stair at airports, which I think is too much for a military cargo.

Now, when I see this, I do feel that probably it is for this troop carrying capacity that An-70 is getting in. After all for an overall small transport aircraft, 300 troops capacity is good. If it is able to deploy paratroops form the two floors, the better. The lower speed of the aircraft will also be of help in para dropping.

Because it carries a lot more fuel – only 10 to 15 of the 50 ton increase in MTOW are due to higher empty weight.

IL-76 able to carry a lot more fuel has to be considered as its advantage. But to fully make use of that fuel capacity, it will need to be installed with very good fuel-efficient engines.

Ilyushin site mentions all three variants with 1,09,500 liters of fuel which when converted gives 88,695Kg.
http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/cargo/76td.html
http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/cargo/76td90.html
http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/cargo/76tf.html

http://www.uacrussia.ru/ru/models/transport/il_76/data/
In the UAC site, it is mentioned that IL-76TD modernized/upgraded to IL-76-TD-90 have a MTOW of 195tons where as a new built IL-76TD-90 have 210tons. So maybe 5 tons have gone into strengthening the airframe during modernization?

Also, I don’t think that there is much problem with wing design or its placement. Because from the available data, it does not seem to have any negative effect on the range. On the contrary, over the years IL-76 have increased their performance with better engines. But more fuel-efficient engines will help in increasing range further. IL-76 powered with CFM56-5C is showing excellent range figures. Maybe for same range either PS-90A3 or PD-14 will need to be installed.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SOyeCN6vhVI/AAAAAAAAAPc/qrkaqNbXFns/s1600-h/IL-76MF-1.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SOeh1PXrrsI/AAAAAAAAAG0/pOp7t3GCZJY/s1600-h/IL-78MKI-90-2.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SOehK7FodMI/AAAAAAAAAGk/WXe3m4FSY7I/s1600-h/IL-78MKI-90-5.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SOeiUOKb3PI/AAAAAAAAAG8/EPbmR-Rr3C8/s1600-h/IL-78MKI-90-1.jpg

In the case of IL-476, except for the 210tons in MTOW and 5,000km @52tons, other details are not known. So lets wait a little more regarding other figures.

– The Tu-330 with NK-93s indeed looks pretty decent, as JangBoGo mentioned, with better performance at range than the A400M and yet rough field capabilities superior to the XC-2. Overall, I would still prefer the An-70 though, especially since the Tu-330 truly is a paper tiger.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood what I posted. I did not mentioned the Tu-330 to include it in the discussion. My target was NK-93 and the capability it gives to an aircraft. In case of Tu-330 it is giving nearly 44% increase in range over PS-90A equipped variant. So a NK-93 powered IL-76 can also benefit with at lest 15-20% increase in range.

– Bearing in mind that the An-70 is at an early point in its life cycle with growth potential, I could easily see its ferry range increasing to 9000km with fairly minor modifications, as done with the C-17 to remove the max fuel limit. At that point it would truly become a complete Il-76MD replacement – even as is it matches the latter very closely at medium ranges, which are likely to be the most important.

I don’t think An-70 is ever going to IL-76 replacement. Antanov’s target probably was capturing IL-76 market which we can see from its payload figure of 47tons. But IL-76 have since then flown miles ahead over the decades with increased payload.

Also, from what is available now, An-70s greatest drawback seems to be its fuel capacity. How do you think they are likely to increase it??

… which includes an interesting drawing on the right, as it shows a very common load that could not be carried in the Il-476 for want of height – a bog-standard semi-trailer! I can vouch for the accuracy of that depiction BTW, where I work there is a passage of 4m height and the first time I saw a semi-trailer hurtling toward it at 30mph I was half expecting to witness a massive accident 😮 There really is THAT little room between the roof of the trailer and the ceiling of the passage! Now, you can carry semi-trailers in an Il-76 AFAIK, but not load them simply by driving aboard.

It have a very long runway requirements. -2,300m for take-off and 2,400m for landing. Probably they are meant for operations only from commercial airports and not short airstrips.

Likely to be. Its only really sensible applications were the Il-106 and Tu-330 – it was too heavy and bulky to be mounted on the Tu-204, Il-96 and Il-76 (for which it was proposed at various times) without major airframe alterations. On the Tupolev ground clearance would have been marginal at best and lateral separation could have become a problem on the Ilyushin quads, so unfortunately with both aforementioned projects dead I can’t see it going anywhere.

I don’t think installing it on Tu-204 or Il-96 was a serious option even though I’ve seen some CG showing Tu-204 with NK-93. In addition to the IL-76 another real option can be the An-70. Since NK-93 produces more than double the power of each D-27, two engines would suffice and also give better range than current An-70.

It looks like IL-76 might be able to accommodate 4 of these. But not sure. Flanker man might have a better front shot of the aircraft.

Great achievement though, I’ve seen two of them in person and they’re massive!

I’ve seen a pic of NK-93 somewhere with a guy standing inside that duct during an airshow. Hope it was not you. 😀

It is supposed to be slightly lighter than the Il-76TD-90 and Il-76MF, which puts it at right around 90 tons, give or take. But ok, let’s say it’s 95 tons, for argument’s sake.

The basic weight of the old Il-76 is 90tons and other figures are mentioned in article. Also, at least 5 tons of fuel needs to be maintained in the wing tanks. So for every fuel-load we need to reduce 5 tons.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1990s/Bewoor.html

In the above we also get to see how thirsty the old D-30KP were. Keeping the engines running on ground took about 1tons of fuel/hour and nearly 3tons of fuel per D-30KP for a 35min flight. With what load, I don’t know. But it was not empty as it is mentioned as carrying men and material.

The An-70 will be 66 tons at the very best, no more than 30 tons lighter but its MTOW is 65 tons lower. MTOW-OEW is therefore 35 tons higher for the Il-476, so at equal payload weights it can carry those 35 tons in additional fuel over the An-70. Bearing in mind that the maximum fuel capacity of the An-70 is probably in the 45 ton ball park that is a huge difference – is it any wonder the Il-476 has more range, despite its much higher fuel consumption? If anything it is pretty telling that it doesn’t outrange the An-70 even more clearly!

And that is being very generous to the Il-476, since the An-70 is likely to be somewhat heavier than in the above example while the Il-476 should weigh slightly less, so its fuel capacity advantage is probably about 10 tons higher in reality.

An-70 not having good fuel capacity is Bad.
IL-76 having good fuel capacity is Good.

IL-76 having fuel thirsty engines is bad.
IL-76 getting better fuel-efficient engines is Good.

An-70s greatest flaw and disadvantage is probably its lower fuel capacity and will have to live with it. NK-93 would have definitely helped to increase range.

just a nice pic :

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/4126/2011mgae054001001p.jpg

Nice.
Any good pics of deck refueling?

Few earlier quotes from Russian aviation that I earlier skipped to save space…

Though I believe IL-476 could have done with little more wider floor width, it still can accommodate (in India’s case) tanks like T-72/90. But airlifting of tanks are not going to be the primary requirement for any heavy transport aircraft (unless other options have run out), as its not economical. So airlifts of tanks are likely to happen only once in a while and not going to be the main requirements for a strategic transport. I mentioned it earlier due to the specific deployment that happened in India’s case. So lets keep aside tank lifting capability for heavy lifters as its main requirement. There are better things in larger numbers to lift for these heavies. 🙂

what can 30 MBT do which attack chopper, much longer range tube artellery cannot do. these things are lighter and getting more longer range.

Only an MBT can hold ground which neither an attack chopper, fixed wing aircraft or artillery can. But MBT is not the only component, there are others like APCs that were airlifted. I specifically mentioned MBTs because it represented more challenge due to its width (which gave very little clearance between the fuselage & hull) and more importantly its weight which was equaling the max payload capacity of the IL-76.

That airlift I mentioned is/was specific to Indian operations. It was done in the past and might require in the future. I do agree that airlift is not the best or economical way to transport MBTs, but the geography of the region where Indian Army wanted to deploy T-72s in the late-80s demanded an airlift. There was no other safer way and hence had to be air-lifted. So airlifting of tanks might only come once in a while only.

flying MBT with transport aircraft is myth. 55~70 ton MBT is going consumed fuel at rate greater than anything else. which simply cannot be supported by airlift alone. MBT are for desert/flat grounds not higher elevation.
see below. it is airlifted to much lower elevation on much larger aircraft. and this only happened in air dominance.

IAF is not likely to lift any MBTs weighing over 50tons as Army may not require any tank over 50tons there. In the future deployment, it might only be T-90s weighing a maximum of upto 47-50tons. The T-72s that was airlifted weighed ~43tons and was at the maximum the Il-76 could carry at that time.

True. MBTs are mainly for desert/plains…and the area where those MBTs got airlifted to be deployed (Leh) is a cold desert which have lots of plains.

Those tanks are surely not airlifted by PLA.
http://i41.tinypic.com/e9xgmr.jpg

Unlike China, our politicians care for their own needs so good roads and infrastructure hardly matters to them. Also, the route to the area is treacherous and mostly supplies go by 4×4 or 6×6 or 8×8. Anything else makes it more risky. So transporting MBTs on trailers was simply not an option in addition to other problems. That is how the airlift came.
http://wikitravel.org/en/Leh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushok_Bakula_Rimpochee_Airport (Leh AFS/Airport)
http://www.ourairports.com/airports/VILH/#lat=34.137560996547684,lon=77.55291938781738,zoom=14,type=Satellite,airport=VILH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leh%E2%80%93Manali_Highway

It is open for only about four and a half months in a year in summer between May or June, when the snow is cleared by the Border Roads Organisation of Indian army, and mid-October when snowfall again blocks the high passes.

The average elevation of Leh-Manali highway is more than 4,000 m (13,000 feet)[2] and its highest elevation is 5,328 m (17,480 ft) at Tanglang La mountain pass. It is flanked by mountain ranges on both sides featuring some stunning sand and rock natural formations.

JangBoGo brought up the Il-476’s narrow body as a specific disadvantage vis-a-vis the C-17, a capability that probably figured into the IAF’s selection of the latter as the core of its future strategic transport fleet. That fact remains unchanged.

IL-76 with little more fuselage width would have been better. But, C-17 & IL-76 are of different class and the Russian equivalent was supposed to be the IL-106. The older IL-76 can very well transport the T-72 as displayed in the past and the fuselage width did present some problem, but it was probably a minor one when compared to the payload capacity which topped at 44tons.

With employment of new engines like PS-90, that problem was solved earlier. The newer IL-476 (IL-76MD-90A) have taken it further by having not just have more powerful engines, but also two-man crew and with a good payload-range figure of 52tons to 5,000km. Max payload is 60 tons, like the IL-76MF.

C-17 is a very costly beast and it is to remain as such in operations also. So even after acquiring the heavier C-17, we are likely to see IL-76s in the same strategic lifter role that it has been doing all these decades. It would hardly be a surprise if the IL-476 becomes the backbone of the strategic transport fleet once again in the future as it will be far cheaper than the C-17, not just in terms of acquisition cost, but also in terms of operating. With the production now getting concentrated in Russia & Ulyanovsk, we can also look forward to see better spares & support for the IL-476.

The main problem now is how fast they can deliver. The latest orders mentioned 39 for Russian AF and about a 100 for civilian operators. Then there is China which is likely to buy 60 of these.

The IAF did evaluate the IL-476 and there is no rule that says export orders cannot be serviced concurrently with domestic orders.

No chance for IAF to have evaluated IL-476 in 2010, when the aircraft only took to air last month. Though it maybe possible that they might have checked the older IL-76 with PS-90A engines.

The IAF didn’t have to have flight test the Il-476 to make up its mind.

An advanced version of the Il-76 was also considered to meet future requirements, but the defence ministry sources say the C-17 was the preferred choice.

http://www.financialexpress.com/news…boeing/612076/

Probably they mean the older IL-76s with PS-90A-76 engine. Since C-17 deal was through FMS, the chance for any comparative evaluation is very low. Or it’s just a manufactured news without mentioning the full context like what we heard about the zero payload story of IL-76s to Leh during summer. In that story, even using little logic one could have asked a genuine question on how an aircraft that airlifted 30 x T-72s weighing 43 tons in Jan-Feb 1988 (winter) to an altitude of over 10,000ft ASL can have a 100% performance drop in summer. For such a 100% performance drop, the aircraft must have at least one engine failure. That is the reason why the story is probably not as simple as it is/was made out to be and it is incomplete.

They evaluated it, even if no formal proposals were made. When the original C-17 orders were announced IAF top brass stated that they evaluated multiple options in the market(needing to justify a single-vendor purchase) and found the C-17 to be the only one that suited them. Multiple options would mean at least two, and the IL-76/476 and An-124 are the only ones besides.

No chance for the IAF to have evaluated the performance of the IL-476 which only flew recently.

Airlifting tanks WAS a factor. The Arjun weighs a few more tonnes than the IL-476’s capacity and in any case neither it nor the T-90 would fit in the 476’s cargo bay. That left the C-17 the only option.

Arjun mk1 might fall within the load capacity of the IL-476, but its width wont allow it in. There wont be any problem w.r.t airlifting T-90s. Its very well inside the 476 margins.
In the earlier case, the payload capacity of the Il-76 was at its edge. It was powered with the D-30KP engines with just 12tons of thrust where as PS-90A gives out 16tons.

Makes no sense. 95% of customers who buy cargo planes don’t do so for an AWACS configuration. As a matter of fact aside from Russia, China and India every AWACS buyer in recent times has preferred commercial airliner platforms.

India, Russia and China, all of them have something in common. That is lots of runways not meeting ‘western standards’ in terms of ‘quality’ & ‘cleanliness’. In real war-time like situations, it is almost impossible to maintain even the best of runways deep inside the territory in perfect conditions. So platforms like IL-76 with high mounted engines are better suited to operation than the commercial airliners based layout that have more chances to have FOD with engines.

Obviously Russian planes will always have a lower price. That still won’t help their sales chances in many Russo-phobic markets. And in those places the C-17 is the only option for strategic lift.

We also see those same customers mostly using An-124 for heavy lift rather than the C-17s. India will be doing the same, IL-76 will be the one doing most of the work like a donkey.

Ultimately, I see the IL-476 and An-124 dominating the heavy transport market for the near future, but that’s only because the C-17 will be out of production soon. It has no bearing on its competitive ability.

I like the IL-476 to be honest, but I wish the RuAF had asked for a lengthened fuselage like on the IL-76MF so that they could make the most of its increased cargo capacity.

IL-476 is a medium-heavy lifter, where as An-124 is a super-heavy with up to 120-124tons payload. The future is An-124-150 with about 150 tons payload probably with PD-30 engines or D-18T-series-5 engine.

Half the forum is one big Sukhoi fanclub, and there are pleeeenty of Kamov fans.
Why wouldn’t there be? Go co-axial or go home. 😀

Indeed. Co-axial, URAAA! 😀

Ka-92 made my heart go co-axial way…but might shift when Rachel comes… 😀

pics shifted to Ru Aviation thread

They have a table listing An-124 and An-225 that links to their respective graphs and specs.

That is the list of aircraft used for their service. What I’m looking for was which aircraft they usually favor for “over-sized” cargo. IL-76 or An-124 or B-747… (even though my bet is on An-124)

I also could not find their fleet strength for various aircraft, if you can find please do post it…