Military Review

Il-96-400TZ fuel tankers will not. Defense Ministry terminated the contract with the KLA

62
The Russian Ministry of Defense has decided to abandon the creation of a "global" tanker Il-96-400ТЗ, the newspaper "Izvestia" reported


Il-96-400TZ fuel tankers will not. Defense Ministry terminated the contract with the KLA


The Ministry of Defense terminated the contract concluded in 2015 with the KLA for the supply of two strategic tanker aircraft for the military aviation. Their final price - taking into account the development cycle, flight tests and the cost of extending the resource - turned out to be much higher than the originally discussed. At the same time, the Ministry of Defense for this money would not solve the problem of reaching serial deliveries of such aircraft.

According to the interlocutors of the publication, Ilyushin offered to convert two Il-96-400T wide-body cargo aircraft into an Il-96-400TZ tanker truck in an accelerated mode — in a year or two without a full R & D cycle. However, the Ministry of Defense did not agree with this proposal. The military insisted on finalizing the aircraft, including the installation of electronic warfare systems, ensuring the possibility of an emergency escape from the aircraft crew, and also on the fulfillment of other specific requirements. But this would require 4 – 5 years - meanwhile, the IL-96-400T will fully develop the remainder of the flight resource.

The Ministry of Defense confirmed the fact of termination of the contract for the supply of two IL-96-400TZ, but refused to comment further.

UAC did not provide a comment. In PJSC "IL" noted that the IL-96-400ТЗ is a project of a long-range trucker. It can be designed to replenish the fuel reserves of aircraft such as the Tu-160 and Tu-95 in the air.

Transport IL-96-400T - an elongated version of the passenger IL-96-300. The aircraft was certified in April 2008. Construction IL-96-400T was established at the Voronezh aircraft factory. In total, by order of the IFC, four cars of this type were built. Voronezh Airlines "Flight" were transferred to the three sides. In 2014, this carrier ceased operations, and the aircraft returned to IFC. One of them was converted into a VIP-liner for the Ministry of Defense. The fourth board was delivered in a special version of the IL-96-400VPU (air control point) for the Federal Security Service of Russia.

According to the technical task, IL-96 – 400ТЗ was supposed to transport over 65 tons of fuel for a distance of 3,5 thousand km. The first flight tests confirmed the possibility of such a modification of the liner.

At the same time, he had to simultaneously carry cargo and people. For this purpose, it was intended to place fuel tanks on the lower deck, on the upper deck, behind the crew cabin, there are seats for passengers, and behind them - a place for containers. The project IL-96-400ТЗ corresponds to the main characteristics of the American aircraft KS-10 and KS-135. There are no other analogues in the world. Other countries use tankers based on Boeing 767 and Airbus A320.
Photos used:
https://vpk-news.ru/
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 5 May 2018 13: 50
    +5
    You can still make a distant reconnaissance ... and AWACS.
    1. maxim947
      maxim947 5 May 2018 13: 56
      +22
      You can still make a long-range reconnaissance ... and AWACS
      You can make a tractor, if you try - just why? and what will it result in?
      The IL-96-400 becomes like a suitcase without a handle - and it’s uncomfortable to carry and throw a pity. And the plane is very beautiful, maybe it will have a future with new engines? And the Voronezh plant suffers the most, and so with orders tight, these also broke off.
      1. Lavrenti Pavlovich
        Lavrenti Pavlovich 5 May 2018 14: 37
        +9
        Some kind of nonsense, in our army there are too many tankers. A wonderful aircraft with a huge resource and some kind of wise guy or traitor refuses to purchase. There are no other refuelers when they build unknowingly.
        1. maxim947
          maxim947 5 May 2018 15: 21
          +4
          And why do they actually need a lot? Unification in the sun is an extremely important thing, there is the 76th and enough. But the idea of ​​remaking the IL-400 as a tanker was not born of a good life, the planes were simply idle and did not know where to adapt them.
          1. Bad_santa
            Bad_santa 5 May 2018 17: 43
            +2
            A four-engine aircraft is the best you can imagine for an air platform. Who has long been chopping IL planes for a long time, but Ilyushin’s planes are essentially more reliable and less critical to system failures (including engines) than their foreign counterparts and Tupolev’s planes. Yes, they lose in terms of efficiency, but this is the result of their reliability.
            PS About 15 years ago, a Tu-204 passenger airliner crashed accidentally in Omsk. Both engines failed and the aircraft had to plan for the runway. Thank God without any injuries. With a four-engine IL, this would not have happened
            1. pafegosoff
              pafegosoff 6 May 2018 12: 32
              0
              He would land with four idle engines.
              Failure of 2 engines out of 2 says: either about the rejection of fuel, or - the failure of the fuel system, or - the failure of the engine management system. There is at least one, at least - 8 engines (the more, the worse).
              1. Bad_santa
                Bad_santa 6 May 2018 13: 25
                0
                The fuel system for each engine is its own and is duplicated. It happens that a fire happens in the engine and then 3 is better than 1. Even the presidential board is repelled by this. And there safety is above all
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 6 May 2018 15: 06
                  0
                  There are no 35t engines in the Russian Federation to talk about a 2-engine aircraft ... Modern "long-range" Boeing 767 type satisfy all safety requirements, and they are higher in civilian than in military.
      2. tol
        tol 5 May 2018 14: 50
        +1
        They have already found new buyers
        1. LSA57
          LSA57 5 May 2018 20: 22
          +1
          Quote: tol
          They have already found new buyers

          It's a good news
      3. Freelancer7
        Freelancer7 6 May 2018 01: 59
        +5
        Suffers if they would have planted a smaller cut - we could have a refueler. If, as it were in the USSR, according to the table, zp would be prescribed, everything that was invented would fly. And now, until the director purchases the 10th hut in Moscow, he doesn’t send his daughter to England for studies, he doesn’t take his wife to the bali for six months - consider not profitable contracts either. I just learned about the development of an operating system for domestic cars - 3 billion rubles (for two years), not 10 lemons, not 156 lemons, not even 540 253 122 rubles, but 3 fucking lemons! The average salary of a programmer is 60 pieces per month. It will take about 10-20 programmers (the core just do 3 will write). 15-30 lemons per salary. Well, let there be an office, some kind of software, in general even 50 lemons. But 3 lard !!! 1,6% of the allocated amount is enough to cover development costs. And this is like the budget of the Russian Federation. That is why we will not have tankers.
        Proof - https://www.securitylab.ru/news/493044.php
      4. groks
        groks 6 May 2018 17: 57
        0
        Yes, he does not suffer. He doubles LOSSES annually. It seems to be 6 billion already in 2016 came out.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. forester
        forester 5 May 2018 14: 14
        +10
        Quote: Zampol
        Russia has decided to abandon the creation of a “global” Il-96-400TZ tanker, Izvestia newspaper reported

        And who advised this to our marshals and generals ..?
        That's how we resist .. Russia does not need anything, we have been hammered in the media for a long time!

        don’t worry, it’s just to our saw cutters (not only the Pentagon’s budget is cutting) they cut into their paws so that they wouldn’t hobble (sorry they didn’t close the years on .... tsat) - the machine is good reliable - they will put the budget in order and the device will be in service - and in general, ILYUSHINA company makes the best airplanes in the world - if you do not agree, give examples, not even disasters, but flight accidents with their machines - NOT ONE !!! 62-M nor ONE 86-M - IL-2 THE MOST LIVING PLANE OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR !!!!!
        1. Greenwood
          Greenwood 5 May 2018 14: 16
          +14
          Quote: forester
          in general, ILYUSHINA makes the best aircraft in the world - if you do not agree
          And what's the point? And only Boeings and Airbases fly around.
          1. forester
            forester 5 May 2018 14: 40
            +2
            Quote: Greenwood
            Quote: forester
            in general, ILYUSHINA makes the best aircraft in the world - if you do not agree
            And what's the point? And only Boeings and Airbases fly around.

            Tankers? in the Russian VKS? - DO NOT Tear the phrase out of context !!!! By the way, Boeing and airbases fall and often - this question is not for me. WHY IS THIS GUANO IN OUR SKY AT OUR “Aviators” !!! - but there is no answer to my question from you, so there is no reason to argue !!! AND THIS IS NOT JUST A PHRASE AND A STATEMENT OF THE FACT !!!!! - and you have nothing to cover with just saliva!
            1. Greenwood
              Greenwood 5 May 2018 16: 12
              +8
              Quote: forester
              Tankers? in the Russian VKS? - DO NOT Tear the phrase out of context !!!
              Nobody tore up anything, your phrase:
              and in general, ILYUSHINA makes the best aircraft in the world

              ... clearly meant not only tankers.
              Quote: forester
              WHY IS THIS GUANO IN OUR SKY OUR "Aviators" !!! - but there is no answer to my question from you, so there is no reason to argue !!! AND THIS IS NOT JUST A PHRASE AND A STATEMENT OF THE FACT !!!!! - and you have nothing to cover with just saliva!
              Judging by how you actively use Caps Lock and exclamation points, you drool over here with drooling.
          2. helmi8
            helmi8 5 May 2018 14: 45
            +6
            Quote: Greenwood
            And what's the point? And only Boeings and Airbases fly around.

            Only one sense. All our air carriers want to make a ton of money, and it’s more profitable for them to buy used Boeings and Airbuses than to invest in their own aircraft industry. And the lobby in the Government sits serious. They also want to eat now, and not later.
        2. NKT
          NKT 5 May 2018 15: 16
          +7
          Are you talking about the disaster with IL-62 and IL-86 seriously? Almost 62% is lost in IL-10, 86% in IL-5
          1. UAZ 452
            UAZ 452 5 May 2018 19: 39
            0
            The Tu-104 at the time was 18%. so there is progress.
        3. kebeskin
          kebeskin 5 May 2018 15: 27
          +4
          But IL-76. as of May 5, 2015, as a result of catastrophes and serious accidents, 73 Il-76 aircraft were lost, of which 24 were aircraft as a result of hostilities. By the way, there are models of airbases and the same Boeing where there were no catastrophes or there were emergency situations but without casualties. Yes, and in the first places in the ratings on the reliability of aircraft is the Boeing 777 and Airbus 340. With their large number of accidents, there are virtually no. (except for the case of a Boeing 777 shot down over Ukraine)
        4. pafegosoff
          pafegosoff 6 May 2018 17: 56
          0
          Rummage over each type on the Internet, before categorically declaring "not one!"
        5. groks
          groks 6 May 2018 18: 03
          0
          Actually, the ILs in the 90s and 2000 together dumped in a Boeing. So you can be proud of the Boeing.
      2. LSA57
        LSA57 5 May 2018 14: 25
        +1
        Quote: Zampol
        And who advised this to our marshals and generals ..?

        The military insisted on the completion of the aircraft, including the installation of electronic warfare systems, providing the possibility of emergency departure by the crew of the aircraft, as well as on the fulfillment of other specific requirements. But it would take 4–5 years - meanwhile, IL-96-400T will fully develop the remainder of the flight resource.

        nobody advised anything. this is reality
        1. just exp
          just exp 5 May 2018 16: 05
          +2
          and what kind of aircraft is this, what does his resource go for 4-5 years?
          with normal care, even old planes can withstand 10 years.
          1. LSA57
            LSA57 5 May 2018 16: 47
            +1
            Quote: just explo
            and what kind of aircraft is this, what does his resource go for 4-5 years?

            so it was not built yesterday
        2. UAZ 452
          UAZ 452 5 May 2018 19: 42
          +2
          Quote: Zampol
          And who advised this to our marshals and generals ..?
          The military insisted on the completion of the aircraft, including the installation of electronic warfare systems, providing the possibility of emergency departure by the crew of the aircraft, as well as on the fulfillment of other specific requirements. But this would take 4–5 years - in the meantime, the IL-96-400T will fully exhaust the remainder of the flight resource.

          And the main thing is to pay for large-scale R&D when a "series" of two sides is planned - a crime. So it is possible to lower the military budget equal to the American one to the toilet.
    3. NKT
      NKT 5 May 2018 14: 01
      +1
      So there is the Tu-214R and A100 ......
    4. 210ox
      210ox 5 May 2018 14: 09
      +4
      For what money? Defense spending has been cut. There are more urgent needs in the Ministry of Defense .. Missiles, fleet, and much more.
      Quote: Zaurbek
      You can still make a distant reconnaissance ... and AWACS.
    5. donavi49
      donavi49 5 May 2018 14: 18
      +2
      Distant intelligence? Well, so-so. There are carcasses. They completely overlap the tasks. Before the development of stealth generators, which will allow you to fly to the USA quietly, there are no special tasks. Everywhere the Carcass reaches, but wherever it reaches, Il will have problems there.

      AWAC is generally an idea on 5. In the world now, on the contrary, they are making a bunch of small AWACS. This is such a trend. They are weaker - but more flexible in application.


      The current A-50 / 100 is so in the dimension and weight category of the heaviest class (like E3).
    6. Bar1
      Bar1 6 May 2018 09: 54
      0
      I think they did not agree, as usual on money. I need a Mercedes at the price of a Cossack, but on the contrary for manufacturers.
    7. iouris
      iouris 6 May 2018 11: 25
      0
      ... or you can just pay the penalty. Also money.
  2. KGB WATCH YOU
    KGB WATCH YOU 5 May 2018 13: 51
    +12
    There is no money, but you hang on there (c) Dimka Medvedev, the best friend of Vladimir Putin.
    1. tagil
      tagil 5 May 2018 14: 05
      +2
      Quote: KGB WATCH YOU
      According to the interlocutors of the publication, Ilyushin offered to convert two Il-96-400T wide-body cargo aircraft into an Il-96-400TZ tanker truck in an accelerated mode — in a year or two without a full R & D cycle. However, the Ministry of Defense did not agree with this proposal. The military insisted on finalizing the aircraft, including the installation of electronic warfare systems, ensuring the possibility of an emergency escape from the aircraft crew, and also on the fulfillment of other specific requirements. But this would require 4 – 5 years - meanwhile, the IL-96-400T will fully develop the remainder of the flight resource.

      what kind of money are we talking about?
      1. KGB WATCH YOU
        KGB WATCH YOU 5 May 2018 14: 14
        +7
        What money ... probably rubles.
        It turns out that if Ilyushin fulfilled all the requirements of the Defense Ministry for the year, would the Defense Ministry accept aircraft with a residual flight resource of 4-5 years? Aren't you funny?
        1. tagil
          tagil 5 May 2018 14: 27
          +2
          Have you read the article carefully?
          Their final price - taking into account the development cycle, flight tests and the cost of extending the resource - turned out to be much higher than the originally discussed. At the same time, the Ministry of Defense for this money would not solve the problem of reaching serial deliveries of such aircraft.
          That's the problem.
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 5 May 2018 13: 51
    +2
    So there is already IL-78! Why a couple more non-serial aircraft with reduced combat stability?
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 5 May 2018 14: 10
      +4
      This is a strategic aircraft - refuel where IL-78 itself will require refueling.
      1. newcomer
        newcomer 5 May 2018 14: 23
        +3
        It is believed that 78 can be brought to level 96 with new fuel-efficient engines (the former commander in chief of the Air Force). but I immediately had a question, but what if I put on 96 new economical engines ?! and the swings here are very tricky: manufacturers nod to the MO that they got them already with the new “introductory” by order, and the MO nods to the manufacturers with the terms and cost of the project.
        1. Kurare
          Kurare 5 May 2018 19: 23
          +5
          In terms of fuel efficiency, the IL-78 and does not lie next to it compared to the 96th. The aerodynamics of the 96th are much better. This is understandable, the aircraft was created for long-distance routes, and the 76/78th transport carrier. A strategic tanker would surely be very good. Moreover, the delivery dates of the new 76/78th are constantly shifting to the right.
    2. iouris
      iouris 6 May 2018 11: 29
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      with reduced combat stability?

      What is the term? Or right now, can everyone directly establish their concepts in an important debate?
  4. Berkut154
    Berkut154 5 May 2018 13: 54
    +2
    As always, industry began to bend its fingers ..
    1. gavrila2984
      gavrila2984 5 May 2018 15: 01
      +1
      Rather, the "Economists" From Industry
  5. newcomer
    newcomer 5 May 2018 13: 59
    +1
    we can only add that Ilovtsy is currently in an active search for new buyers for unclaimed boards.
  6. Ivan Tarava
    Ivan Tarava 5 May 2018 14: 04
    +5
    It would be better for the Russian Post did. They would drive to China. Maybe the goods did not go for 30 days.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 5 May 2018 14: 11
      +4
      Question. Do not upload. And the 747 Cargo Boeings are more interesting. Especially on the secondary. Now there are a lot of them. Well, that is - who will buy an economically dubious board? When can I buy a proven option - on which competitors in transportation are bucks?
      1. exo
        exo 5 May 2018 19: 15
        +1
        The IL-96 in the cargo version could not even compete with the Boeing 747. At the same time, everyone rejects the 747 in favor of trucks based on the Boeing 777. Here, generally speaking, it’s incorrect to compare. Probably how to compare the TB-3 and AN-12.
  7. Hikaro
    Hikaro 5 May 2018 14: 09
    0
    Yes, sad for the factory! Amid a reduction in defense order funding, this looks alarming! All the same, it’s necessary to somehow be clearer with planning, plus a little appetite for the producers !!
    1. groks
      groks 6 May 2018 18: 07
      0
      For the plant do not care. Already.
  8. donavi49
    donavi49 5 May 2018 14: 20
    +3
    By the way, in China, J-17 was spotlighted. New deck fighter for Type-001 / 001А. An analogue of the American growler. Plus various changes (spark, removed OLS).
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 5 May 2018 14: 22
      +3
      Well, on a regular carrier, the latest preparations. The first landing of the Z-8 was made using standard ship drive systems.
    2. exo
      exo 5 May 2018 19: 10
      +2
      And we have an excellent base for the EW carrier-based aircraft: Su-34. But, apparently, the state does not need this.
      1. UAZ 452
        UAZ 452 5 May 2018 19: 47
        0
        SU-34 on the "Kuznetsov" plant? And what is not immediately A-50?
      2. NKT
        NKT 5 May 2018 20: 28
        0
        There was a topic on the Yak-44, both as an EW aircraft and as a DROiU. To return to her ....
  9. san4es
    san4es 5 May 2018 14: 32
    +2
    Ilyushin proposed converting two Il-96-400T wide-body cargo aircraft into tankers ...

    hi Engines:
    4 x TVRD PS-90A-1 with a thrust of 17400 kg
    TTX of the aircraft (by default, IL-96-400T data):
    Crew - 3 pax
    Length - 63,939 m
    Wingspan - 60,105 m
    Height - 15,717 m
    Wing area - 391,6 m2
    Maximum take-off weight - 270 t
    Payload (fuel) mass - 65 t
    Flight range maximum - 14000 km
    Range with a maximum payload of 58 tons - 10000 km
    Radius - from 3500 km (with maximum payload)
    Maximum speed - 900 km / h
    Cruising speed - 870 km / h
    Operational ceiling - 12000 m
    Take-off run - 2550 m (concrete runway only)
    Refueling equipment The aircraft should be equipped with UPAZ-1 universal aviation refueling devices (probably at least 3 units) soldier
  10. AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 5 May 2018 15: 17
    0
    ... it would take 4-5 years ...

    What a deadline however! Of course, I don’t know much, but in my gut I feel that this is too much. stop
  11. exo
    exo 5 May 2018 16: 02
    +3
    The author does not own the question at all. First: on the basis of the A-320, there is no refueler. It is made on the basis of the A-330.
    Secondly: all the aircraft he listed: KS-10 and KS-135, Boeing 767 and Airbus, are one line with the IL-96. Namely: they are based on passenger airliners.
    Here are the IL-78 and KS-130, out of this scheme, knocked out.
  12. Doliva63
    Doliva63 5 May 2018 17: 20
    +7
    "IL-96-400VPU (air control center) for the Federal Security Service of Russia."
    This is really cool! Lavrenty Palych would never have thought of such a thing. laughing
  13. exo
    exo 5 May 2018 20: 50
    +3
    Quote: UAZ 452
    SU-34 on the "Kuznetsov" plant? And what is not immediately A-50?

    "Sometimes, it's better to chew than talk" (c) Have you heard about a plane like the Su-32 KUB? Photo, on the deck of "Kuznetsova"
  14. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 6 May 2018 05: 26
    +2
    M-d-ah! "Love has passed ... the tomatoes have withered ..." request
  15. gromoboj
    gromoboj 6 May 2018 17: 07
    0
    Top agents sit and crap slowly.
    Either the helicopter carriers for lard want to buy tanks or everything from strangers. And here you see it is expensive. ki.
  16. Beltasir matyagu
    Beltasir matyagu 6 May 2018 20: 06
    0
    Oak those yet. Black hole with Gaidar corruption. Make refuellers would be a desire