A Western Il-76

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
6,074
Reaction score
6,188
en.m.wikipedia.org

Ilyushin Il-76 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
In the 1960s the Soviet Union provided its Airline and Air Force with a four engined jet transport designed to replace prop An12s..
In contrast, the United States and the UK developed various designs to replace the C130 Hercules and earlier prop planes. A competition was even held in the 70s between 2 US jet designs. The Winner was not adopted but evolved into the C15. The UK designed a pair of jet freighters, the AW681 and the jet version of the Short Belfast.
Looking at the Il76 and the smaller two engined Kawasaki C1 it is hard to see why the West made such a mess of this one.
We of course have On Atlas' Shoulders and the recent two volumes on US airlifters to stagger us even more with the range of designs looked at in the US and UK.
In the spirit of other what-if aircraft threads could we make a better job of it. A wider fuselage version of the C141 Starlifter like the Jet Belfast? Could we make the AW681 more practical like its smaller Japanese cousin?
Europe didnt even bother. The C160 Transall was its answer.
 
Il-76 has a few advantages in e.g. fuselage diameter size but fairly comparable to the C-141 really.

The AMST program's YC-15 led to the C-17 which replaced the C-141. This has a wider fuselage.

I'm not understanding the premise really? What is unique about the Il-76 that was missed by the West?
 
The US had more than adequate aircraft across the transport aircraft sector - the great C-130, the C-141A & upgraded C-141B, the technology pushing C-5A and upgraded C-5B, and eventually the C-130J, C-17 and further upgrades to the C-5.
The US didn’t miss having a more direct analog to the Il-76 at all.
And the UK got the C-130, Belfast (briefly), and eventually the C-130J, C-17 and Atlas.
So operationally they ended up having at least as good a resulting actual capacity as they could have afforded from developing and fielding any domestic II-76 equivalent.
So again not seeing any great “miss” from an UK perspective (indeed they were better off having not wasting the money and other resources doing so - imagine the likely opportunity costs that would have accrued.)
 
Just a bit off the topic and taking a small step back in time the C133. From what I have read this aircraft was underpowered (at 7500hp each), the comment in On Atlas Wing during a flight by an RAF officer appears to suggest that the engines were being run at full power causing major uncomfortable vibration in line with the airscrews. Then there is the reputation for the engines catching fire. Then you have the competing design of the Antonov AN-22 which id double the power (15000hp each) but having double the maximum take of weight.

Did the contraprop of the Antonov wake the difference? If not what would have been the ideal engine power for the C133?
 
Last edited:
As Kaiserd mentions, the US and UK do have the superb C130 and eventually the UK gets the C17.
I think what I had in mind was that the Il76 reduced the need for so many different types.
In the RAF it would have replaced the Argosy, Beverley and Belfast and reduced the number of C17s needed.
For the USAF it would have replaced the Globemaster, Cargomaster and some if not all C130s. It would have been a fatter Starlifter with rough field performance. It would have reduced the numbers of C5 needed and also replaced C17 in many roles.
I suppose it should have been a different Starlifter.
From Lockheed's point of view of course Kaiserd calls it right.
 
uk 75 said:
In the RAF it would have replaced the Argosy, Beverley and Belfast and reduced the number of C17s needed.
Click to expand...
*cough* AW681
Even so the 1975 Defence Review would likely have flogged them off anyway and C-17 is a generation behind the needs that drove the RAF's tactical transport requirements of the 1960s.
People have tended to overlook just how much of the transport fleet was stripped away in from Andovers to Belfasts and Argosies and Britannias. Left us Herk-wedded for 40 years apart from a dozen VC-10s. Britannias and Belfasts were still doing the donkey work but on lucrative contracts.
 
I was surprised to find that AW681 was less able to carry loads than the C130K. I have not got "On Atlas' shoulders" to hand for the diagram and figures.
If the RAF had had an Il76K instead of C130/Belfast/Britannia fleet in 1975 it might have seen some reduction in numbers but not the same heavylift deficit. A stretched version might have made A400 unnecessary and reduced the numbers of C17s required.
 
Hood said:
uk 75 said:
In the RAF it would have replaced the Argosy, Beverley and Belfast and reduced the number of C-17s needed.
Click to expand...
*Cough* AW.681.
Click to expand...
Would have needed to drop the ridiculous V/STOL capability requirement. Even then the AW.681 would still be around a quarter smaller than the Il-76. You then get the question of whether the UK had a need for a jet-powered cargo lifter as opposed to a turboprop-powered one or not.

Does anyone know if the AW.681 got far enough for them to have any decent idea of what dimensions the cargo bay might have been?
 
Last edited:
Siberia said:
Hood said:
uk 75 said:
In the RAF it would have replaced the Argosy, Beverley and Belfast and reduced the number of C-17s needed.
Click to expand...
*Cough* AW.681.
Click to expand...
Would have needed to drop the ridiculous V/STOL capability requirement. Even then the AW.681 would still be around a quarter smaller than the Il-76. You then get the question of whether the UK had a need for a jet-powered cargo lifter as opposed to a turboprop-powered one or not.

Does anyone know if the AW.681 got far enough for them to have any decent idea of what dimensions the cargo bay might have been?
Click to expand...
AW681-Brochure-9.jpg
 
Thanks for those. So a quick look at the plans the AW.681 would have been roughly comparable in cargo bay size to the C-130, if a touch taller. No doubt faster but likely more expensive both upfront and over its lifetime.
 
The real missed opportunity was an AW.681 with either four Pegasus or (better) four BS.100.
We know the basic technology of the engines work, and hanging them below a high wing would be easier than building P.1154 where the BS.100 and PCB played havoc with the rear fuselage structure. Also hot gases re-ingestion; once again, less an issue if the engines are hanged below a high wing, C-141 / C-5 style.
 
archipeppe said:
AW.681 seems a sort of V/STOL forerunner of the original McDonnell Douglas C-17 proposal.
Click to expand...

AW.681 certainly feels close to the XC-14 and XC-15 programmes that came a little later.
Arguably they were the greater missed opportunity but then everyone has been flying 'Herks' for decades and nobody has ever really complained.

Even in the USSR the Il-76 never totally supplanted the An-12 from its workhorse status (though rapidly did as those airframes used up their fatigue life post-breakup).
 
Nosing over at the cargo bay dimensions in yhe AW.681....

It would seem tight width wise but possible to get 6 land-rovers into that, but it would need stretching some 12ft or more to get 8 in.
 
XC-14 / XC-15 have AW.681 and Breguet 941 DNA...

Interestingly enough, circa 1962 both Flight International and Aviation leak mention the AW.681 as having four BS.100 (the P.1154 engine) rather than four BS.53 (Pegasus)


The BS.100 would have made a lot of sense, considering the P.1154 having the same engine...
 
Last edited:
Rather like the F4 Phantom and Boeing 707 the Lockheed C130 tends to dominate any alternate history.
The idea behind my Il76 idea was that a single type would replace C130/C141 class aircraft.. AW681 was only an expensive alternative to the Herc, as were C14/15.
 
Hood said:
Arguably they were the greater missed opportunity but then everyone has been flying 'Herks' for decades and nobody has ever really complained.
Click to expand...
The 'J' model isn't as well regarded as the older models though.
 
It is interesting that even today there is no direct replacement for the C130.
The A400 is a bit like the Il76 I proposed in the 60s. But it doesnt really.
 
uk 75 said:
It is interesting that even today there is no direct replacement for the C130.
The A400 is a bit like the Il76 I proposed in the 60s. But it doesnt really.
Click to expand...
The C130 doesn't need to be replaced and even if it did, the technology that would enable the successor's capabilities doesn't exist, yet. Cargo rockets and drones offer probably a more compelling avenue.
 
Re: il-76 Dropping static-line paratroopers from front doors ...
Yes, we know that Soviet static-line parachutes are far more complex with drogues and automatic activation devices (KAP-3?) which delay opening until aft of engines.
Does any other military transport drop paratroopers from doors ahead of wings and engines?
 
riggerrob said:
Re: il-76 Dropping static-line paratroopers from front doors ...
Yes, we know that Soviet static-line parachutes are far more complex with drogues and automatic activation devices (KAP-3?) which delay opening until aft of engines.
Does any other military transport drop paratroopers from doors ahead of wings and engines?
Click to expand...
Not that I'm aware of. Every jump I ever made was always from aft of the wings and engines. Even jumps where we weren't on a static line. The very thought of jumping in front of the engines scares the piss out of me. Jumping is hazardous enough without the added terror of possibly getting sucked into an engine or having your chute getting shredded by the fan/prop.
 
Some airlifters diameter:
C-130 & C-141: 3.05 m
HS.681: 10 ft, 2 inch; or 67-in*2 = 3.10 m
YC-14 & YC-15: could carry a 3.60 m wide M60 Patton.
Il-76: 4.8 m
Short Belfast: 4.9 m
Y-20: 5.5 m
A400M: 5.64 m
 
Except it could carry a tank. That extra width makes a big difference where oversized cargo is concerned.

The C-141 analogy was made because it was what came to mind at the time (4 engines and about the same weight capacity), but rough field capability and a larger diameter hull gave it a lot more flexibility and put it in a different class of transport since it is useful as a tactical transporter as well as strategic. It's replacement was supposed to be the An-70, which no one has compared to the C-141.
 
This was because a different global approach.

The USAF MAC (Military Airlift Command), during the 60's, had already in service the Douglas C-133 "Cargomaster" and previously was planning to have the big (really big) Douglas XC-132 .
Furthermore, during the 60's it was released the CX-HLS from which was born both the Lockheed C-5 "Galaxy" and also the Boeing 747 (as a sort of side effect).

Russians came with the An-124 "Ruslan" only two decades after.
Obviously the C-141's replacement was bigger and more capable C-17 but it was generated by internal USAF needings rather than a carbon-copy of the Il-76....
 
Also the Russians build 970 of them, less than Hercules but probably a record for a military jet cargo transport.
 
So, a STOL widebody transport with enough capacity to carry a tank or four (I'm thinking about 4x M551s or 4x M41s, not 4x M48/M60s, carried 2x2)?

I think the first challenge would be to have a mechanized airborne unit that needed full-sized tanks moved by air. That's a pretty uniquely Russian idea, though I'm sure the 82nd would love to have transport and fire support other than their boots. How's that line go again? "Too light to fight, too heavy to run"?

For that to work, I think this requirement would have to happen pretty early on before the C130 really dug in as THE tactical airlifter. Maybe if the engines had proved troublesome?
OR, this requirement would have needed to catch the C141 before the stretched -B models were developed, and a larger budget was available for fixing the "run out of volume before running out of weight capacity" issue.

The M41 Walker Bulldog is 3.2m wide and 5.8m long through the hull, so carrying them 2x2 would require a cargo bay at least 6.5m wide by at least 11.6m long (I'm assuming the guns are arranged to overlap the hulls of the tanks), and probably closer to 7m wide by 12m long. Cargo weight of 208klbs. That said, the US Army quickly decided that the M41 was too big to be a good recon tank in comparison to the M24 Chaffee, but it was a decent size for an infantry support tank.

The M551 Sheridan is 2.8m wide and 6.3m long. Carrying Sheridans 2x2 would require a cargo bay at least 5.6m wide and 12.6m long, and probably closer to 6m wide and 13m long, cargo weight of 136klbs.

Tanks 2x2 would make for a chonky looking cargo lifter. very fat fuselage diameter but short length.

For the AW.681, I could easily see it flying on straight-through Pegasus engines if the VTOL requirements didn't happen. 28klbs of thrust each beats the heck out of Medways making 13.7klbs. Or, keep the split fan nozzles and drop the hot nozzles so the core blows straight back, use a simple diverter if you need vertical thrust.
 
helmutkohl said:
a tail gun!

;)
Click to expand...
Initially to provide rearward defence.
Later the tail gun/cannon was retrofitted with flares to divert infrared missiles.
It was also a handy place to mount a camera to observe paratroopers exiting the airplane.
 
Wasn't the 23mm cannon not the usual GSh-23 but some weird design that fired cased telescoped ammunition not used in any other application? The Soviets didn't seem all that concerned about ammo standardization for their mix of small caliber autocannons.
 
Last edited:
Colonial-Marine said:
Wasn't the 23mm cannon not the usual Gsh-23 but some weird design that fired cased telescoped ammunition not used in any other application? The Soviets didn't seem all that concerned about ammo standardization for their mix of small caliber autocannons.
Click to expand...

No. The original gun was the AM-23, also used in the Tu-16 and Tu-95 bombers and various other aircraft. But it fired the same 23x115 ammo as the GSh-23 series. And later Il-76 models switched to the GSh-23L. There are chaff and flare rounds for both of these guns in the bomber defense role, but both guns will also fire standard ammo.
There is also a 23x152mm round for AA guns (the ZU-23 and ZSU-23-4, for example). It's a much punchier round, sort of like the relationship between the Western Aden/DEFA straight-walled 30x111 and the more powerful 30x173.
 
riggerrob said:
Soviet navigators liked to use drift sights for navigation over trackless parts of Siberia.
Click to expand...
I knew that all the Russian transports, up to the An-124, had bomber position and rear gunner to serve as "emergency bomber" in case of war. Something that could be justified during and immediately after WWII but difficult to understand during the 60's or, worse, during the 70's....
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom