The A-100 has nothing to do with any of that quote, you are trying to be deliberately obtuse again.

It has every thing to with IL-476. as they sooner IL-476 in series production. airframes becomes available for A-100. There is no time for modifying the design when it is already the most efficient.

No, it just shows that Russia’s pockets aren’t as deep as you keep dreaming after all.

Russia pockets are very deep compared to USSR that ur trying to compare. They are willing to spend $10b on MS-21 alone.
USSR free distribtuon of weopons to allies with illogical assembly lines.
USSR simply dont have the money for the quality control, very indepth worker training and complex supply chain. I am not even going into 5 axis machines, supercomputers in every organization. specialized center of aerokomposites, titanium and hiring the most expensive individuals in the world.

Why? That was never my theory in the first place – the Il-96 figures as a tanker and AWACS, but not for (roll-on/roll-off) cargo. Your reading comprehension is either seriously impaired or you are being disingenuous (probably both, if I had to guess).

IL-96 is never designed for AWACS. and there is no twin engine IL-96 either.
IL-476 has very big impact on transport aviation as its son MTA is also coming. MTA gives advantage as it will be using same engine/x-section and avionics of IL-476 upgrades. It is part of unified transport/AWACS/Tanker/Anti-sub system. Alot of cost savings in pilot training and support costs.with sufficient quantity to sustain round the clock operations.
MTA can also become anti-sub aircraft just like P-8

http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/models/cargo/mts/mts_design/
Early-warming and homing aircraft,
Patrol and reconnaissance aircraft,
Airborne relay aircraft,
Search and rescue aircraft,
Jammer,
Refueling tanker.

Almost anything more recent than 1990.

$300m C-17 when production is at 250 new planes and most of them built in low inflation 90s and early 21st century. I think you dont have any idea of new plane development and market principles. IL-476 has very reasonable start at 39 planes and add another 100. if all them can done around $120m. a piece it is good.

Yes, that’s why the Il-476 is what, two or three years late?

As compared to what?

In 1980s there were no attack choopers with such level of sensors/weopons ($50m attack chopper) and UAVs. the role of airpower has fundamentally changed.
There is more accurate and netcentric MLRS systems from short to very long range. You dont need heavy tanks to roll back much larger force.
Mobility, range and speed are more important than carrying bulky stuff.

A400M with its short range and slow speed may not even fly outside EU operations without multiple stops.
IL-476 will fly directly all the way to Africa from China.

I’m not sure how Volga-Dnepr arrives at 4600km with 50 tons, the Ilyushin website says 4100 (MD) to 4300km (TD) – it could be calculated with different reserves (which can make a big difference, as seen in the C-17 diagram).

here is another airline that have the same data. and they have 7 in operations.

http://www.silkway-airlines.com/

There is no question of different reserves 50 ton weight to 4600 km is all that matter without exceeding 195 ton MTOW. since u cannot exceed 195ton MTOW. the fuel used cannot be more than 65 ton at most.
80 ton is very light weight for IL-76 class freighter.
Now IL-476 is more advanced with 70% of airplane got changed.

C-17 265 MTOW dont allow it to carry max fuel and max payload at same time.

Yeah, so my SWAG without even having looked at any data wasn’t 100% accurate – the range advantage is actually 40% (see edited post, including the source). 40% still is anything but ‘slightly’ in my book :rolleyes:

5700km with 45 tons:

[ATTACH]208831[/ATTACH]

… which still is 30% worse than the C-17, and that it catches up is only because the maximum fuel limit for the Globemaster starts to hit home in that part of the graph (OEW + full fuel + 45t payload < MTOW). If you could install auxiliary fuel tanks in the spare room inside the cargo hold such that the C-17 could fully utilise its MTOW again the difference would be back to around 40%.

your using some old graphs.

see this real operational data of modernized IL-76 which dont have new wing, glass cockpit, reinforced fuselage, fbw controls

50tons to 4600km at 195 MTOW. Max airfield elevation is 3000m.
http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/charter/fleet/il76/specific/

if u increase it linearly to 210 MTOW. you get 15 tons of extra fuel.. which is 20% of fuel load. it definetly goes 5500km with 50tons if MTOW is 210 ton.
52 tons to 5000km is pretty conservative figure.

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/4477
The new aircraft’s engines have lower fuel consumption (by 10%), its flight range has increased to 5,000 km with a cargo capacity of 52 tons, and take-off weight increased to 210 tons. The aircraft can take off from and land on unpaved and concrete airfields at the altitude ranging from 300 metres below to 3000 metres above sea level.

3000 meter is 10,000 feet. very competitive with 7600 feet elevation for C-17 at full load.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/docs/c17_overview.pdf

Suffice to say, for the Indian and Chinese armies both tanks and helicopters have value on the mountanous border. Far be it for us to doubt their competence.

It depends on money and industrial ability not just armed forces competence. China can hardly make 20 to 30 light medium choppers a year with imported engines. Russia is going to be built 300 and soon expanding to 500. Mass heli borne force structure is simply not an option for India/China.
See 30 helicopters on each Mistral.

The Soviets used tanks in Afghanistan. The US is also using them now. So there certainly seems to be some utility to using them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ZvzfnQNzw

Even the Afghan National Army has some.

They were used in past. US using them in the south not in mountains. but very limited numbers.

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.

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.

Tank lifting is criteria created to eliminate competition.

It has a glass cockpit and digital controls, so does the C-17. ‘More advanced’ is subjective. Newer does not mean more advanced.

52 tons to 5000km in 210 ton MTOW aircraft shows better aerodynamic performance which is similar with 265 ton MTOW aircraft. C-17 will carry 52 tons to slightly greater range but it is going to consume a lot more fuel.

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.

Apart from some old 4 engine AWACS. There is no new 777/A-330 based AWACS that will provide similar performance to A-100. It is simply not viable to create 30 to 40 AWACS on these platforms. IL-476 low acquisition costs and already aerodynamic data regarding large AESA antenna ensures that costs are known to large extent.
http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2012-03-16/1_zelin.html#

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.

Actually they don’t need sales overseas as long as they control the cargo market through there own firms and those firms keep investing in improving the products with OEM.

Not many if they have to be airlifted in a jiffy. But over time, the IAF can mobilise hundreds of tanks to the border. Which they plan to do, if they haven’t done it already.

BTW those border areas have no good rail network connectivity, so air transport is still more viable.

No idea. But C-17s have airlifted US Army tanks before.

It is not some continuous operations. Once in a while incase tanks need repair. IAF have very small transport fleet. High acquisition and fuel costs of C-17 will ensure that it will always remain a small fleet.

But that hasn’t created interest in the IL-76 or An-124 for militaries, has it? They prefer to just lease it when needed from Volga Dnepr.

They don’t want to depend on Russian support and Pilot training incase they have to buy planes. It works out for both sides to lease.

The Indian Army would disagree, since they are actually sending and operating them there.

Indian army don’t have experience with air logistics operations on scale that was done in Iraq and Afghanistan. So what they know what needs to be done to support tanks on larges scale in mountains when there is no other means. Russia knows is it flown 2500 sorties in less than two weeks of Georgian war. And its Cargo companies also as they have real experience.

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.

$300m a piece no commercial operator is going to buy it whether it is in production or not. Capabilities are not there for this price.

LOL. While gunships fly on their own.

The need less crew and engines have much greater service lifes. there is not much investment in tank engines on scale as chopper engines. gunship engines are common with transport choppers. it benefits the industrial chain

Gunships aren’t replacing tanks anywhere.

They are indeed replacing. All major powers are reducing Tanks intake by large and but adding choppers in multiples with much greater capabilities, longers ranged weopons and sensors.

Did you finally get around to examining the terrain where the tanks are being deployed on the India-China front? Or does your world begin and end in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is the biggest continous air operations. and it offers all kind of terrain.

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/iaf-to-get-10-c-17s-from-boeing/612076/

so they didnot evaluated as you claimed. Advance versions is only those that are flying with Volga and Silkairways. India is small country with short routes. At most one or two exercises outside. see Ruaf it has to deploy equipment on very fast area more efficiently and quickly.

Support costs are not limited to engines. And aircraft production is set to continue past 2015. There’s been no scaling down at the plant so far.

what else is beside engines that make up $120m of support costs?. IF takes that much to support it without engines than it is simply not viable.
Aircraft production is scaled down due to finishing up of USAF orders. so costs have risen alot.

They don’t need to be supported by air.

yup so every thing is going to be supplied by ground and only tanks will be airlifted. have u looked why supplies are air droped in Afghanistan.

So now you want to discuss the Iraq War. :rolleyes:

You made nonsens claim of tanks airlifting. I gave u example t countries dont attempt it on scale against non existent power. and your her claiming that tanks will be airlifted to battle field against superior air force.

Doesn’t change the fact that the An-124 isn’t in production and the Il-476 can’t airlift tanks.

An-124 production will be higher in future than C-17 once new engines/avionics are certified. There is big demand for its 150 tons version.
$300m price 11000km range with 150 ton payload.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2012-07-09/russia-ukraine-pact-set-put-ruslan-heavylifter-back-production

Tanks are better protected than gunships and aren’t susceptible to MANPADS. They’re also cheaper to acquire and operate than a gunship. The advent of aerial gunships hasn’t rendered them obsolete.

Tanks are cheaper to acquire and operate?. u need 3 people salary to operate tank. they have huge fuel (short range) and logistics (tank shells) costs. extremely vulenerable from Air power to IED.
Gunships have much greater engine power so more sophisticated radar and Electronic warfare suites can be installed. high speed and low altitude flight ensure element of surprize in attack along with greater turn around time.

Stuck where? Did you finally identify the sectors of deployment and the the terrain in those areas?

I dont see any utility of tanks in mountains. how many choppers operate in afghanistan and compared to tanks.

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

IAF didnot evaluate IL-476 as it hasnt flow yet and and all initial orders are for Ruaf. Only new versions with PS-90 that are used extensively are two to three carriers.
http://www.silkway-airlines.com/

IL-476 has highers cruising speed, more range and 60ton payload capacity, more advanced glass cockpit and digital controls.
it has huge advantage over other competitors like A330-200F/C-17 etc as they dont have AWACS version. and are nearly 2.5 times the initial acquisition costs.They are simply too heavy for shorter range operations.

Includes support. Fly away cost is less than 2/3rds of that.

there is no support cost for additional single order. as there is no spare engines involved. Engines are $40m for a single C-17. so if they are not part of support. it is not really a support as i said prices are rising as production winds down.

JangBoGo also mentioned that the IAF has had to airlift tanks to that altitude, so that pretty much blows a hole in your theory about such a mission requirement being a ‘myth’.

how many tanks can be supported with small fleet.

I said armoured forces not armoured cars. ‘Armoured forces’ include tanks. Seriously, are you using a translation tool?

why didnot US lift tanks in C-17 into Northern Iraq instead of fighting all the way from the South.
Fact of matter is Russian cargo companies are using for years continously to support Iraq/Afghan wars. They exactly know what kind of cargo was carried. the kind of landing strips that were built. the distance carried. where the hubs are located globally. and they made the most profit. All this real world experiance is input into IL-476. and modernized An-124.
It is not just the range with cargo but empty range for previous modernized version increased to 10,200km. and some time aircraft need to be sent to remote locations empty.

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/presscentre/releases/?id=5831

The gradients are far steeper on the Indian side of the LAC. Doesn’t change the basic premise – tanks are being used in high altitude regions.

so gradients steeper means tanks are not workable on Indian side.

What can attack helicopters do that fighter aircraft can’t. What can tube artillery do that MBRLs can’t. What can MBRLs do that cruise missiles can’t. :rolleyes:

Combined arm warfare necessitates the tanks be used in conjunction with APCs/IFVs, artillery and air support. Either/or doesn’t enter the question

Attack choppers has more flexibility to pick individual targets with cannon and rockets at much greater range with sensors. it can go to places where Tanks cannot. Tanks are for desert and urban environment.
Tanks are simply not criteria for medium lift transport aircraft. They have alot more uses.

^^^ In the very same post as a picture of Leopard 2 being airlifted. Words fail me.

it is flown to much lower elevation in much larger aircraft with full runway.

You can be truly incorrigible. You and I both know you have absolutely no idea what kind of terrain the tanks will be deployed in whether its in Ladakh or Sikkim or what sort of infrastructure to support them exists on ground. Five minutes on google would have clarified matters for you. But you’d rather comment first and risk being called out as a troll.

yup lifting tanks to higher elevation is so good idea. they will become static targets. and will face ATGMs at various elevations not to mention airpower.
when tanks dont have mobility they lose big advantage. for mobility it needs lots of fuel/recovery/support vehicles.