747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3244 times:
During the cold war, if the USAF build a transport jet, the USSR would build a answer to it. The IL 76 was the answer to the C 141 Starlifter, the An 124 ( An 400) condor was the answer to the C-5 Galaxy. The C-17 Globemaster 3 was design during the cold war, but the cold war was over by time the C-17 had it's test flight. Was there a USSR answer to the C-17 that was cancel after the cold war came to an end?
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3238 times:
The Il-76 Candid is actually pretty comparable. Though seemingly a response to the Starlifter, the Candid had some rough field capabilities that the Starlifter did not. With that said, I don't believe the Candid has the C-17's STOL capabilities.
Anyhow, there is not really any other operational or future CIS aircraft in between the An-70 (which almost directly comparable to the A400M) and An-124 other than the Il-76.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3103 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 2): One could say the stretched and re-engined IL-76MF is some sort of an answer to the C-17.
Yes, but most Il-76s can only haul about 60% of the C-17's load, and even the Il-76MF can only lift about 80% as much. I don't think the cargo bay is as wide, either.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2945 times:
I would have been almost impossable for the USSR, to develop an aircraft comparable to the C-17. The C-17 flew for the first time in September 1991. The USSR had collapsed and no longer existed by December 1991.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3766 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2899 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): During the cold war, if the USAF build a transport jet, the USSR would build a answer to it.
No, they did not. The Russians just happened to need military (and civil) airlifters, and built what they thought they needed to their own requirements, in their own timescale, obviously having a good look at foreign designs, but not governed by them.
While the C-130 is superior to the An-12, the Il-76 is much better (and newer) than the C-141, and the same is true to some extent for the An-124 vs Fred. And the An-22 had no counterpart in the West.
The Il-76 was and is doing fine and if the USSR had remained a superpower, it would have been developed further and would have met the needs for aircraft in that class for the foreseeable future. The C-17 may be a bit better (mostly because of superior engines), but not nearly enough to justify the expensive development of an entirely new aircraft. Had there been a US aircraft very similar to the Il-76 (the C-141 is not), the C-17 would never have been.
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
F4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 13 Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2804 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): During the cold war, if the USAF build a transport jet, the USSR would build a answer to it.
The types of systems that would need to be answered to are tactical and strategic systems that present a threat needing to be negated. Support systems are not developed to counter opposing support systems. Although many aircraft may look similar and beg the question of being copied, I think it is more of engineers coming to similar conclusions on how to optimize cargo handling and movement.
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA
Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2760 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 6): The last transporter developed in the east was the An-70, an answer to what?
Directly comparable to the A400M in almost every way. However, the An-70 flew first, twelve years ago. Draw your own conclusions as to who copied whom.
[Edited 2007-01-02 18:54:32]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2469 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 11): Nah, come on, you know that was cold war politics, they didn't have a choice !
Then why so many country's buy C-130 instead of An-12!
Acheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1415 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2455 times:
Buying it at the time would have had political connotations(i.e being an ally of the soviet) plus the soviets stopped producing the type quite early in 1973, literally giving away all the market of those that weren't interested in politics for the C-130(and the C-160 Transall to a lesser degree).
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3766 posts, RR: 20 Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2421 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12): There was an arms race going on during the clod war.
So what? Read F4wso's intelligent answer in reply 7. As the Russian army staff you have a concept to move your stuff, and your transport aircraft fit into that. The apperance of the C-17 on the other side doesn't change your concept immediately, unlike the appearance of say, the B-2 which may force you to change your air defence concept.
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 12): Then why so many country's buy C-130 instead of An-12!
Because most of them were clients of the US. But, indeed, I was hinting at neutral countries which had a choice, and most of them bought the C-130.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2155 times:
I just fond a Russian counterpart to the C-17. The IL 106, it was never built, but it near the same size as a C-17.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3766 posts, 
From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1415 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
