Suppose I want to buy an large military transport aircraft. It seems I have to buy the IL-76M.

Reading all this, I'm thinking the IL-76M is the best of the available large transports. It costs maybe 1/3 the price of an A400, and carries more payload farther.

A 4x4 MRAP weighs 15,000 lbs. A Boxer weighs about 60,000 lbs. An M-1 Abrams weighs about 145,000 lbs.

A C-130 can carry 34,000 lbs 1,800nm. Not big enough.

A C-390 can carry 51,000lbs 1,500nm. Better, but not big enough.

An A-400 can carry 50,000 lbs 3000nm. Just barely big enough. And very very expensive!

An Il-76M can carry 80,000 lbs 3,100nm. Low purchase price.

A Y-20 can carry 80,000 lbs 4,200nm. But it's not in full production and the Chinese have never exported them.

A C-17 can carry 140,000 lbs 3,000nm. That works. But not in production!

A 777-300ER. Even with the cargo door, you cannot get most military vehicles inside.

B-747 with nose loader. Can carry a Boxer only if you take off everything (including any attached turrets). Needs ground equipment to load and unload. Cheap to buy and plenty of spare parts around. Burns more fuel than an ocean liner.

For any given military, the price is rarely the main reason to buy (or not to buy) something.

It's rather: How does the plane complement our existing capabilities? And how can the plane be maintained if we're cut off from the manufacturing countries?

And sometimes it's just about maintaining development and production expertise (e.g. the A-400, or the F-35). The US does not need the F-22 and the F-35 for any conflict in the near future. The US could save the money and burn through the existing fleets of F-16 and F-18. After all, every military pilot is expendable. It's not just the infantryman that has to bleed and die.

But the US wants to maintain the leader position in military technology, and the way to do so involves ordering the latest expensive shit.

Lastly, some of your planes have a wholly different role (e.g. C-130 is not a long-distance transporter, the 777 and 747 need ground equipment).

...if you pre-suppsed an IL-76M is the answer you want to derive from your skewed stats...

You can't compare all those aircraft at once. Not a single one is in the same category. This is like comparing a compact car to a sedan to an SUV to a straight truck to a 53 footer. Of course they are not the same.

The nail in the coffin is go try to find support/spare parts for your IL-76M compared to an equivalent program from the west that places emphasis on support.

If you want a strategic airlifter the Kawasaki C-2 wins hands down.

Purchase price: You will need two Ilyushins to do the job of one C-2 as you will always have an IL-76 grounded with a check engine light. So now the purchase price is comparable.

Engine maintenance: The IL-76 would have needed 50+ engine overhauls before the first CF6 engine comes off the wing.

Fuel cost: Over a full lifecycle an aircraft this size consumes hundreds of millions of litres of fuel. The purchase price is only a fraction of the total cost.

Oversized loads: The C-2 has a 4m X 4m cross section while the IL-76 has a 3.4m X 3.4m cross section. No Apache or Chinook in the IL-76. Useless.

Payload range:The C-2 wins again. Wiki numbers are wrong and misleading. The C-2 has a OEW and MTOW of 61t and 141t. This leaves 80t for payload and fuel. The IL-76 is 92t and 190t which leaves 98t for payload and fuel. Put two Apache helicopters at approximately 12t in both aircraft and the C-2 has 68t of fuel and the IL-76 has 86t. Now the IL-76 has 26% more fuel but it is taking off at a MTOW 35% heavier. The IL-76 burns the extra fuel away and could never take the Apache helicopters as far.

Takeoff roll:The C-2 has a total thrust of 119,489lb. The IL-76 has only 106,000lb of thrust. At MTOW the C-2 has a thrust to weight ratio over 50% higher. Operating from a 1500m runway the C-2 can carry approximately twice the payload weight or carry the same payload weight twice as far.

The IL-76 is absolutely destroyed by the C-2 in every metric. The fact you didn't even list the C-2 shows your complete lack of knowledge on this topic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76

I expect the C-2 to gather many future customers. The C-2 has the highest headroom and design growth of any airlifter available. I consider the C-2 like a 777-200 with its 247t MTOW. We saw the 297t 777-200ER and 347t 777F which were dominant. The 777 gained 4-6t of empty weight for each massive 50t of MTOW increase. A 5t increase in empty weight on the C-2 for strengthening could easily add 10t of payload weight and 20t of MTOW to the design. This really improved the economics and 3 if these C-2 aircraft could replace 4 C-17.

I even think the C-2 design could go a step further by adding a 5m stretch, GenX engines and end up with a 80t OEW and 180t MTOW aircraft. This C-2 could match the payload of the C-17 in terms of longer Pacific flights due to its flat payload range curve.

meecrob wrote:

...if you pre-suppsed an IL-76M is the answer you want to derive from your skewed stats...

You can't compare all those aircraft at once. Not a single one is in the same category. This is like comparing a compact car to a sedan to an SUV to a straight truck to a 53 footer. Of course they are not the same.

The nail in the coffin is go try to find support/spare parts for your IL-76M compared to an equivalent program from the west that places emphasis on support.

I'm so not sure how my stats are skewed.

And these plane are in different categories. My point is that if you want a large airlifter .. there is no other plane in the category. Although the C-2 is an interesting alternative I didn't consider.

flyingturtle wrote:

For any given military, the price is rarely the main reason to buy (or not to buy) something.

It's rather: How does the plane complement our existing capabilities? And how can the plane be maintained if we're cut off from the manufacturing countries?

None of these planes can be maintained if you're cut off from the manufacturing country. Although the C-130 and B-747 come close.

RJMAZ wrote:

If you want a strategic airlifter the Kawasaki C-2 wins hands down.

Purchase price: You will need two Ilyushins to do the job of one C-2 as you will always have an IL-76 grounded with a check engine light. So now the purchase price is comparable.

Engine maintenance: The IL-76 would have needed 50+ engine overhauls before the first CF6 engine comes off the wing.

Fuel cost: Over a full lifecycle an aircraft this size consumes hundreds of millions of litres of fuel. The purchase price is only a fraction of the total cost.

Oversized loads: The C-2 has a 4m X 4m cross section while the IL-76 has a 3.4m X 3.4m cross section. No Apache or Chinook in the IL-76. Useless.

Payload range:The C-2 wins again. Wiki numbers are wrong and misleading. The C-2 has a OEW and MTOW of 61t and 141t. This leaves 80t for payload and fuel. The IL-76 is 92t and 190t which leaves 98t for payload and fuel. Put two Apache helicopters at approximately 12t in both aircraft and the C-2 has 68t of fuel and the IL-76 has 86t. Now the IL-76 has 26% more fuel but it is taking off at a MTOW 35% heavier. The IL-76 burns the extra fuel away and could never take the Apache helicopters as far.

Takeoff roll:The C-2 has a total thrust of 119,489lb. The IL-76 has only 106,000lb of thrust. At MTOW the C-2 has a thrust to weight ratio over 50% higher. Operating from a 1500m runway the C-2 can carry approximately twice the payload weight or carry the same payload weight twice as far.

The IL-76 is absolutely destroyed by the C-2 in every metric. The fact you didn't even list the C-2 shows your complete lack of knowledge on this topic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76

I expect the C-2 to gather many future customers. The C-2 has the highest headroom and design growth of any airlifter available. I consider the C-2 like a 777-200 with its 247t MTOW. We saw the 297t 777-200ER and 347t 777F which were dominant. The 777 gained 4-6t of empty weight for each massive 50t of MTOW increase. A 5t increase in empty weight on the C-2 for strengthening could easily add 10t of payload weight and 20t of MTOW to the design. This really improved the economics and 3 if these C-2 aircraft could replace 4 C-17.

I even think the C-2 design could go a step further by adding a 5m stretch, GenX engines and end up with a 80t OEW and 180t MTOW aircraft. This C-2 could match the payload of the C-17 in terms of longer Pacific flights due to its flat payload range curve.

Awesome catch. I should have listed the C-2. But is the C-2 really available? When was the last time Japan exported any piece of military equipment of any size and value? I read all the time about people saying "Japan should export XXX" but it never happens.

"The fact you didn't even list the C-2 shows your complete lack of knowledge on this topic." There is no need to be mean. If I was a nube this would be discouraging. But in fact, I just forgot. If that never happens to you I'm glad for you.

Why do you think Wiki numbers are off? Do you have a more creditable source (like Kawasaki or the Japanese military) that says better numbers?

"I expect the C-2 to gather many future customers." OK. I think you're wrong. You wrote that "The sales should come soon. " 10 months ago ... and nothing so far. Time will tell, but history is on my side, since Japan almost never exports things like this.

"I even think the C-2 design could go a step further by adding a 5m stretch, GenX engines and end up with a 80t OEW and 180t MTOW aircraft." Sure. But that's not an aircraft you can buy today, or even in five years.

Finally, I don't know that you can actually buy a C-2 at any rate. They are making about 3 per year.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... nal-debut/

I think I'd have to say either the C-2 or IL-76 only in the same universe where a C-17 doesn't exist. Basically everyone that could, to include defense "spendthrifts" like the Canadians, ponied up for a C-17. Very flexible, reliable and survivalable platform when paired with good tactics.

FlapOperator wrote:

I think I'd have to say either the C-2 or IL-76 only in the same universe where a C-17 doesn't exist. Basically everyone that could, to include defense "spendthrifts" like the Canadians, ponied up for a C-17. Very flexible, reliable and survivalable platform when paired with good tactics.

The C-17 does not exist, if you're a new buyer. It's been out of production for 6 years. No one is selling them used. Just not available.

Newark727 wrote:

Whatever happened to the Il-76 stretch?

Seems so weird that the only production is <5 airplanes for Jordan, even given the obstacles in front of the Russian aviation industry.

How weird. I didn't even even know it existed.

Development for a long time has been on the Il-76MD-90A, an upgraded version with a new glass cockpit, upgraded avionics, new one-piece carbon-fibre wing, and Aviadvigatel PS-90A-76 engines. That plane has flown, and I believe has a 20% range advantage over the normal IL-76. It's been ordered by the Russian Air force, but I don't know it's being produced in large numbers. But if you had $$$, I'm sure the Russians would quickly make as many as you wanted.

kitplane01 wrote:

Awesome catch. I should have listed the C-2. But is the C-2 really available?

Yes it is available. They are pushing for the UAE order and they even did dirt runway testing after UAE requested it. It was also offered to New Zealand.

All the major western countries have fresh C-17 or are locked into the A400M program.

The C-2 production from the very start was set up to be efficient at a low rate over a long period. Japan will give away their delivery slots and/or increase production rate to satisfy any international order which is standard industry practice. There are very few countries left that need or could afford half a dozen strategic airlifters. There is no problem with the current C-2 production rate being able to satisfy any international order.

Both the IL-76 and C-2 produced 3 aircraft in 2020. So any fantasy country that needed say 50 aircraft within 5 years only the A400M production line could deliver that.

kitplane01 wrote:

Why do you think Wiki numbers are off?

It is about understanding how one statistic translates into usable capability. The IL-76 might have a much higher max payload weight on paper, the C-2 has slightly more cargo volume. When both aircraft are at maximum payload the smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient C-2 has far more fuel. The C-2 as a result has a much flatter payload range curve so as the flights become longer the IL-76 has to offload more payload weight to carry fuel. On a reaslistic 4,000nm flight both have similar payload weight.

It is like the old 757 Vs new A321XLR in terms of payload. Looking at the MTOW and max payload the old 757 looks superior. However there is a crossover point where the A321XLR can carry more payload weight. On the shorter flights the A321XLR burns less fuel with the same payload.

The Il-76 has an engine overhaul interval of 2,000 hours and a max life of 9,000 hours shown in the crash report link below. The CF6 has reached over 30,000 hours without removal from the wing shown on the GE link below. That is 50+ engine overhauls on the IL-76 before an CF6 engine has to be taken off the wing. The Il-76 is great if you only want to fly once a week and you don't mind if it breaks down and the cargo arrives a day late. The Kawasaki C-2 could fly multiple flights per day with extreme operational tempo. Needing two Il-76 to do the job is a single C-2 is conservative. Doing daily flights there would be 0% chance the pair of il-76 would be still flying after a week. Yet it is highly likely the C-2 would be able maintain daily flights for over a month. The C-2 is built with airliner reliability like the KC-390. Even the KC-390 is a better option than the IL-76 as they have the same cargo bay width. You would just put one heavy vehicle in KC-390 and two in the il-76.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... ut-removal

https://reports.aviation-safety.net/201 ... 4L-GNI.pdf

The IL76 would be like a rental van from Home Depot. Clapped out with a sticky steering wheel but only $25/hr to rent.

The C130 would be like a rental pick up truck from Home Depot also with a sticky steering wheel but only $20/hr to rent.

The C2 would be like buying a brand new Tacoma TRD for $48k. Expensive but capable and will last forever.

The C17 would be like buying a brand new Tundra TRD for nearly $60K. Same as the C2 but bigger.

And for the sake of it, the C5 and AN124 are 18 wheelers, with the An225 being an 18 wheeler that's hauling wind turbine blades or massive oil equipment.

I'd say the difference is the -130 is one of cool Taiwanese built Rangers, and the C-17 is the Toyota Land Cruiser.

Embraer is building the only real affordable transport today for military purposes for new customers. The C-2 is neat, but as with the Japanese efforts to sell a military MPA aircraft, quite bespoke/unique to the point it is not likely to do substantially well abroad.

The C-130 of course still exists/does well in it’s market but is maybe so ubiquitous at this point that it’s pointless to debate it’s role in the market.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Awesome catch. I should have listed the C-2. But is the C-2 really available?

Yes it is available. They are pushing for the UAE order and they even did dirt runway testing after UAE requested it. It was also offered to New Zealand.

All the major western countries have fresh C-17 or are locked into the A400M program.

The C-2 production from the very start was set up to be efficient at a low rate over a long period. Japan will give away their delivery slots and/or increase production rate to satisfy any international order which is standard industry practice. There are very few countries left that need or could afford half a dozen strategic airlifters. There is no problem with the current C-2 production rate being able to satisfy any international order.

Both the IL-76 and C-2 produced 3 aircraft in 2020. So any fantasy country that needed say 50 aircraft within 5 years only the A400M production line could deliver that.

kitplane01 wrote:

Why do you think Wiki numbers are off?

It is about understanding how one statistic translates into usable capability. The IL-76 might have a much higher max payload weight on paper, the C-2 has slightly more cargo volume. When both aircraft are at maximum payload the smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient C-2 has far more fuel. The C-2 as a result has a much flatter payload range curve so as the flights become longer the IL-76 has to offload more payload weight to carry fuel. On a reaslistic 4,000nm flight both have similar payload weight.

It is like the old 757 Vs new A321XLR in terms of payload. Looking at the MTOW and max payload the old 757 looks superior. However there is a crossover point where the A321XLR can carry more payload weight. On the shorter flights the A321XLR burns less fuel with the same payload.

The Il-76 has an engine overhaul interval of 2,000 hours and a max life of 9,000 hours shown in the crash report link below. The CF6 has reached over 30,000 hours without removal from the wing shown on the GE link below. That is 50+ engine overhauls on the IL-76 before an CF6 engine has to be taken off the wing. The Il-76 is great if you only want to fly once a week and you don't mind if it breaks down and the cargo arrives a day late. The Kawasaki C-2 could fly multiple flights per day with extreme operational tempo. Needing two Il-76 to do the job is a single C-2 is conservative. Doing daily flights there would be 0% chance the pair of il-76 would be still flying after a week. Yet it is highly likely the C-2 would be able maintain daily flights for over a month. The C-2 is built with airliner reliability like the KC-390. Even the KC-390 is a better option than the IL-76 as they have the same cargo bay width. You would just put one heavy vehicle in KC-390 and two in the il-76.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... ut-removal

https://reports.aviation-safety.net/201 ... 4L-GNI.pdf

Yes, the C-2 is awesome. But it costs 2x or more over an Il-76.

I don't understand why you think the wiki numbers are "wrong". It says things like "4,000 km (2,500 mi, 2,200 nmi) with 60,000 kg (132,277 lb) payload. 5,000 km (3,107 mi) with 52,000 kg (114,640 lb) payload." Do you have a different number? (I do understand the concept of a flatter range curve, but that's not the same thing as saying the wiki page has an error.

I don't think the average CF-6 goes 30,000 hours between overhaul, but I'm sure it's better than a D-30KP. But for enough money, you can buy extra engines (or extra planes) to maintain availability, and pay for overhauls. An Il-76 is maybe less than 1/2 the price of a C-2.

I would bet someone else's house that the Russians could make a large batch of Il-76s much faster than the Japanese could make the same number of C-2s.

Really I think it comes down to this: To know if the C-2 or the IL-76 is the better buy long term we would have to know operating costs. And that's not public information. I think we agree on all of these points: The C-2 burns less fuel, and needs many fewer engine overhauls. The Il-76 costs much less to buy. The Il-76 parts costs less but you will need more of them.

texl1649 wrote:

Embraer is building the only real affordable transport today for military purposes for new customers. The C-2 is neat, but as with the Japanese efforts to sell a military MPA aircraft, quite bespoke/unique to the point it is not likely to do substantially well abroad.

The C-130 of course still exists/does well in it’s market but is maybe so ubiquitous at this point that it’s pointless to debate it’s role in the market.

The C-390 and the C-130 are a different, smaller class of airplane.

A debate between the C-130 and C-390 would be interesting though (make your own thread!)

kitplane01 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Awesome catch. I should have listed the C-2. But is the C-2 really available?

Yes it is available. They are pushing for the UAE order and they even did dirt runway testing after UAE requested it. It was also offered to New Zealand.

All the major western countries have fresh C-17 or are locked into the A400M program.

The C-2 production from the very start was set up to be efficient at a low rate over a long period. Japan will give away their delivery slots and/or increase production rate to satisfy any international order which is standard industry practice. There are very few countries left that need or could afford half a dozen strategic airlifters. There is no problem with the current C-2 production rate being able to satisfy any international order.

Both the IL-76 and C-2 produced 3 aircraft in 2020. So any fantasy country that needed say 50 aircraft within 5 years only the A400M production line could deliver that.

kitplane01 wrote:

Why do you think Wiki numbers are off?

It is about understanding how one statistic translates into usable capability. The IL-76 might have a much higher max payload weight on paper, the C-2 has slightly more cargo volume. When both aircraft are at maximum payload the smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient C-2 has far more fuel. The C-2 as a result has a much flatter payload range curve so as the flights become longer the IL-76 has to offload more payload weight to carry fuel. On a reaslistic 4,000nm flight both have similar payload weight.

It is like the old 757 Vs new A321XLR in terms of payload. Looking at the MTOW and max payload the old 757 looks superior. However there is a crossover point where the A321XLR can carry more payload weight. On the shorter flights the A321XLR burns less fuel with the same payload.

The Il-76 has an engine overhaul interval of 2,000 hours and a max life of 9,000 hours shown in the crash report link below. The CF6 has reached over 30,000 hours without removal from the wing shown on the GE link below. That is 50+ engine overhauls on the IL-76 before an CF6 engine has to be taken off the wing. The Il-76 is great if you only want to fly once a week and you don't mind if it breaks down and the cargo arrives a day late. The Kawasaki C-2 could fly multiple flights per day with extreme operational tempo. Needing two Il-76 to do the job is a single C-2 is conservative. Doing daily flights there would be 0% chance the pair of il-76 would be still flying after a week. Yet it is highly likely the C-2 would be able maintain daily flights for over a month. The C-2 is built with airliner reliability like the KC-390. Even the KC-390 is a better option than the IL-76 as they have the same cargo bay width. You would just put one heavy vehicle in KC-390 and two in the il-76.

https://www.geaviation.com/press-releas ... ut-removal

https://reports.aviation-safety.net/201 ... 4L-GNI.pdf

Yes, the C-2 is awesome. But it costs 2x or more over an Il-76.

I don't understand why you think the wiki numbers are "wrong". It says things like "4,000 km (2,500 mi, 2,200 nmi) with 60,000 kg (132,277 lb) payload. 5,000 km (3,107 mi) with 52,000 kg (114,640 lb) payload." Do you have a different number? (I do understand the concept of a flatter range curve, but that's not the same thing as saying the wiki page has an error.

I don't think the average CF-6 goes 30,000 hours between overhaul, but I'm sure it's better than a D-30KP. But for enough money, you can buy extra engines (or extra planes) to maintain availability, and pay for overhauls. An Il-76 is maybe less than 1/2 the price of a C-2.

I would bet someone else's house that the Russians could make a large batch of Il-76s much faster than the Japanese could make the same number of C-2s.

Really I think it comes down to this: To know if the C-2 or the IL-76 is the better buy long term we would have to know operating costs. And that's not public information. I think we agree on all of these points: The C-2 burns less fuel, and needs many fewer engine overhauls. The Il-76 costs much less to buy. The Il-76 parts costs less but you will need more of them.

This article from 2013 has the CF6-80E1 (claimed to be the the highest thrust version in the article) with about 4,000 cycles before the first shop visit. The article says the average flight cycle is 5 hours, so you are looking at about 20,000 flight hours. This article was in 2013, I don't know if that average has changed. I's not 30,000 hours, but 20K is a heck of a lot. I'm sure some folks here have a lot more information on this than me.


https://www.doric.com/fileadmin/Doric_A ... ngines.pdf

Just a tidbit, the Il-76MD-90A has faced low production rates and development delays like any other program. 3 delivered in 2019 and 2020 each, with 5 planned for 2021. Russia itself is planning for ~10/year, which is about as much as the A400M and C-2 currently combined.

I am not aware of any recent commercial or export orders for the Il-76. I'm sure that you could order a dozen or so and get them delivered within a reasonable timeframe. There's no reason to assume that production could be ramped up quickly for any large export ambitions, though.

TWA772LR wrote:

The IL76 would be like a rental van from Home Depot. Clapped out with a sticky steering wheel but only $25/hr to rent.

Yes and the crash investigation for the IL-76 I posted above shows that there was no servicing paperwork for the engines. The global Il-76 fleet flying as a ticking time bomb is the only way it can win on price. If the IL-76 was serviced to the standards of the USAF they would have a higher hourly operating cost than a B-2 bomber. A massive maintenance crew would be required to keeping them as reliable as a C-17 or C-2. They would need a dozen spare engines for every IL-76 and engine inspections every month.

The worst and most dangerous large cargo plane is the Il-76.

kitplane01 wrote:

Yes, the C-2 is awesome. But it costs 2x or more over an Il-76.

100% false. Stop making things up.

kitplane01 wrote:

To know if the C-2 or the IL-76 is the better buy long term we would have to know operating costs. And that's not public information. I think we agree on all of these points: The C-2 burns less fuel, and needs many fewer engine overhauls. The Il-76 costs much less to buy. The Il-76 parts costs less but you will need more of them.

The information is public. I posted the engine overhaul information and so did another user. We know the price of fuel and the fuel savings using simple math. We know the cost of labour when it comes to maintenance. We have dozens of spare engines versus no engines for the C-2 if we want an apple to apple comparison.

Fatigue service life is also public. It's like comparing two sets of tyres one set lasts twice as long as the other. The fast wearing set needs to be half the price just to be cost parity. The crash investigation document shows the IL-76 service life.

1.6.2. The service life of aircraft before first overhaul was defined 20 years or 7000 / 3500
flying hours / cycles in accordance with ILYUSHIN (IL) Public Corporation decision # 76TD-022 / 3

The C-17 has a service life of 30,000 hours.

Engines are also a decent percentage of the purchase cost of an aircraft. 20% is a very reasonable estimate so adding a dozen spare engines and the initial purchase price is already 60% higher. 12 spare engines or 3 sets of engines are required to last up to the CF6 first shop visit.

RJMAZ wrote:

"The fact you didn't even list the C-2 shows your complete lack of knowledge on this topic."
...
"Stop making things up."

(sigh) .... (sigh)

About the prices of the IL-76 and C-2 and A400:

There haven't been any recent sales at public prices. So the best we can do is look at older data, and take guesses. These numbers will be off.

When China bought 38 IL-76s and IL-78s, reports were prices between $22M each and $34M each. When Jordan bought 5 westernized, stretched Il-76s, they paid $50M each. Those are 2005 numbers, so in 2021 that would be $31M, $48M, and $70M. In 2012, the Russian Air Force signed a contract for 39 at $115M each, but that included spares and training and more. In 2021, that's $137M. In 2019, defenseindustrydaily says an Il-76 costs "well under $100M".

In 2013, France budgeted $200M for it's A400s. That's $235M today. In 2015, Malaysia bought 4 aircraft for $275M each, but that included significant spare parts and support and training. That's $318M today.

In 2017, Japan was paying $176M for each C-2. That's $192M today.








https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... nal-debut/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ch ... ers-01180/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/il ... rts-07569/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s no way any Russian planes is the best large cargo plane. Proof: no one other than Russians and few of their friends are flying them. Reason: lousy after sale support for starters.

OK

The Il-76 is operated by Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Azerbaijan, and Burkina Faso. That's 18 nations.

The C-17 is operated by 8 nations. The A-400 by 8 nations. The C-2 by one.

The Il-76 is old, and typically bought by poor nations because it's cheaper. Or they were a gift. But it has lots of operators. Over 1/2 the world population lives in a nation operating the IL-76, which the C-17 and A400 cannot say. (The C-130 also can.)

India, Algeria, and Egypt are three nations that the west would sell planes to, but keep their Il-76s. (If Germany will sell you a pair of MEKO 200's or France a bunch of Rafales, they will probably sell you a transport aircraft.)

By the way, the Il-76 probably DOES have bad after sales support.

It's been said on this thread that the Il-76 has an engine that needs an overhaul every 2,000 hours. That engine, the D-30KP, is a very old design and is not installed on new built Il-76s. New built Il-76s get a completely new engine, the PS-90.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviadvigatel_PS-90

kitplane01 wrote:

It's been said on this thread that the Il-76 has an engine that needs an overhaul every 2,000 hours. That engine, the D-30KP, is a very old design and is not installed on new built Il-76s. New built Il-76s get a completely new engine, the PS-90.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviadvigatel_PS-90

Still worse than the CF-6 (which is already an older design by today's standards). If you want a guarantee for low maintenance, take an engine that has proven itself in the civilian airline market. (I want afterburning F404s on the A321. )

kitplane01 wrote:

The Il-76 is operated by Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Azerbaijan, and Burkina Faso. That's 18 nations.

And here's another point: Countries get the Il-76 at discount rates because these governments also sign economical and other treaties with Russia. Of all these countries, none of them is tightly integrated into western markets. The Il-76 getting sold to a western country (well, not Cuba) would prove that the Il-76 is a sane thing to buy and operate.

kitplane01 wrote:

Suppose I want to buy an large military transport aircraft. It seems I have to buy the IL-76M.

Reading all this, I'm thinking the IL-76M is the best of the available large transports. It costs maybe 1/3 the price of an A400, and carries more payload farther.

A 4x4 MRAP weighs 15,000 lbs. A Boxer weighs about 60,000 lbs. An M-1 Abrams weighs about 145,000 lbs.

A C-130 can carry 34,000 lbs 1,800nm. Not big enough.

A C-390 can carry 51,000lbs 1,500nm. Better, but not big enough.

An A-400 can carry 50,000 lbs 3000nm. Just barely big enough. And very very expensive!

An Il-76M can carry 80,000 lbs 3,100nm. Low purchase price.

A Y-20 can carry 80,000 lbs 4,200nm. But it's not in full production and the Chinese have never exported them.

A C-17 can carry 140,000 lbs 3,000nm. That works. But not in production!

A 777-300ER. Even with the cargo door, you cannot get most military vehicles inside.

B-747 with nose loader. Can carry a Boxer only if you take off everything (including any attached turrets). Needs ground equipment to load and unload. Cheap to buy and plenty of spare parts around. Burns more fuel than an ocean liner.

Buy a lighter tank


How often is tanks airlifted into a war zone by aircraft anyway ?

In the Iraq I think they came by ship ... Norwegian ship if I'm not misstaken

kitplane01 wrote:

A C-390 can carry 51,000lbs 1,500nm. Better, but not big enough.

An A-400 can carry 50,000 lbs 3000nm. Just barely big enough. And very very expensive!

An Il-76M can carry 80,000 lbs 3,100nm. Low purchase price.

Makes me wonder why you talk about "large" cargo planes and then make it look like the smaller KC-390 can carry more than the larger A400M (max. capacity 81,000 lbs).

You don't even look at the size of cargo bays, a weak point of your winner IL-76.

Regarding the price, at least the A400M has had a recent sale. Further campaigns are under way. Indonesia is now also looking at the A400M's aerial refuelling capabilities. Existing business relations play a role as well.

It's not all that simple as Top Trump card games.

Noray wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

A C-390 can carry 51,000lbs 1,500nm. Better, but not big enough.

An A-400 can carry 50,000 lbs 3000nm. Just barely big enough. And very very expensive!

An Il-76M can carry 80,000 lbs 3,100nm. Low purchase price.

Makes me wonder why you talk about "large" cargo planes and then make it look like the smaller KC-390 can carry more than the larger A400M (max. capacity 81,000 lbs).

You don't even look at the size of cargo bays, a weak point of your winner IL-76.

Regarding the price, at least the A400M has had a recent sale. Further campaigns are under way. Indonesia is now also looking at the A400M's aerial refuelling capabilities. Existing business relations play a role as well.

It's not all that simple as Top Trump card games.

OK. I'm interested. Post something about cargo hold size. Data is awesome. Educate us.

As to the numbers I posted, I just went with what Wiki said. I rather assume everyone knows the C-390 is clearly smaller than the A400M. In particular, the max takeoff weight is 310,000 lbs vs 191,000 lbs.

As to Indonesia, they look at and lot more things than they pay for and take possession of. But good luck to all involved!

flyingturtle wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

It's been said on this thread that the Il-76 has an engine that needs an overhaul every 2,000 hours. That engine, the D-30KP, is a very old design and is not installed on new built Il-76s. New built Il-76s get a completely new engine, the PS-90.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviadvigatel_PS-90

Still worse than the CF-6 (which is already an older design by today's standards). If you want a guarantee for low maintenance, take an engine that has proven itself in the civilian airline market. (I want afterburning F404s on the A321. )

kitplane01 wrote:

The Il-76 is operated by Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Azerbaijan, and Burkina Faso. That's 18 nations.

And here's another point: Countries get the Il-76 at discount rates because these governments also sign economical and other treaties with Russia. Of all these countries, none of them is tightly integrated into western markets. The Il-76 getting sold to a western country (well, not Cuba) would prove that the Il-76 is a sane thing to buy and operate.

Algeria, Egypt, and India could all buy any western cargo plane. And they keep the Il-76s they have.

kitplane01 wrote:

OK. I'm interested. Post something about cargo hold size. Data is awesome. Educate us.

Why don't you educate yourself before opening another skewed thread to confirm your predefined results?

kitplane01 wrote:

As to the numbers I posted, I just went with what Wiki said.

What Wiki? This is what en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas#Specifications actually says about the A400M. I can't find your numbers there.

Capacity: 37,000 kg (81,600 lb)

Range: 3,300 km (2,100 mi, 1,800 nmi) at max payload[nb 3]

Range with 30-tonne payload: 4,500 km (2,450 nmi)
Range with 20-tonne payload: 6,400 km (3,450 nmi)

kitplane01 wrote:

Algeria, Egypt, and India could all buy any western cargo plane. And they keep the Il-76s they have.

For the same reason that kids drive the old family car, and parents hop in the late model luxury sedan, but both are still in the garage.

Mortyman wrote:

Buy a lighter tank


How often is tanks airlifted into a war zone by aircraft anyway ?

In the Iraq I think they came by ship ... Norwegian ship if I'm not misstaken

Armor air mobility is hotly debated topic.

For example, for countries with the requirement to deploy "just heavy enough" forces to potential defense of a far flung EEZ, force packages that are just armored enough to present a credible defense and light enough to get there in N+96 timeframe is the point, so the entire force package/armor is the whole point.

kitplane01 wrote:

Algeria, Egypt, and India could all buy any western cargo plane. And they keep the Il-76s they have.

They're not buying any new Il-76 either, though.

In any case, military procurements are anything but a free market. The Il-76 could be 1000x better than the A400M or the C-17 but few countries that currently operate the latter two would actually buy one. Simply because it's politically undesirable. I believe India is the only country that operates both the C-17 and the Il-76.

Sure, there are some countries like Egypt that happily buy from all major nations but those acquisitions always come with some political ties in the background.
Egypt has a combat fleet of F-16, Rafale, Mirage 2000, MiG-29 and Su-35. Not due to military needs but because such orders are accompanied with improved political relations with the selling country.

The Il-76 WAS the best Large Cargo Plane. Not any more.

Someone had done the math some time back. Initial acquisition cost is low, but operational and maintenance cost is much much higher. Overall Lifetime Ownership cost the C17 was quite competetive. Alas, C17 is not in production either.

Right now i think the Y-20 beats the pants off the competition. And it will be in full production in 2022.

PS: I hear from very reliable sources that the Pakistanis are taking a good hard look at the Y-20 to replace their large fleet of C130s. Much more capable, affordable and produced by an ally too! Good for them!

Noray wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

OK. I'm interested. Post something about cargo hold size. Data is awesome. Educate us.

Why don't you educate yourself before opening another skewed thread to confirm your predefined results?

I thought that people came to airliners.net to become educated? Basically, by arguing for the Il-76, I've learned about the different choices.

Also, I don't have predefined results. I've been arguing for the IL-76, but totally agree the C-2 is a very good alternative (probably what I would actually buy if I was in the position).

BawliBooch wrote:

The Il-76 WAS the best Large Cargo Plane. Not any more.

Someone had done the math some time back. Initial acquisition cost is low, but operational and maintenance cost is much much higher. Overall Lifetime Ownership cost the C17 was quite competetive. Alas, C17 is not in production either.

Right now i think the Y-20 beats the pants off the competition. And it will be in full production in 2022.

PS: I hear from very reliable sources that the Pakistanis are taking a good hard look at the Y-20 to replace their large fleet of C130s. Much more capable, affordable and produced by an ally too! Good for them!

Can you tell more about the math? Provide a source? I didn't think even approximate operational costs were in the public domain.

BawliBooch wrote:

The Il-76 WAS the best Large Cargo Plane. Not any more.

...
Right now i think the Y-20 beats the pants off the competition. And it will be in full production in 2022.

PS: I hear from very reliable sources that the Pakistanis are taking a good hard look at the Y-20 to replace their large fleet of C130s. Much more capable, affordable and produced by an ally too! Good for them!

The Y-20 will have WS-20 engines (and has flown with them). Do we know if they are any good? I wonder in particular if they are better than the PS-90As that the very latest Il-76s will fly with. Chinese engines have not always been the best. Also, do you know of any reliable specs for the Y-20. I've seen "estimated specs" that have for example, the max takeoff weight ranging from something like 180T to 220T.

But my guess is like yours, that the Y-20 is an improvement over the 50 year old Il-76. I just wonder how much of an improvement.

kitplane01 wrote:

The Y-20 will have WS-20 engines (and has flown with them). Do we know if they are any good? I wonder in particular if they are better than the PS-90As that the very latest Il-76s will fly with. Chinese engines have not always been the best. Also, do you know of any reliable specs for the Y-20. I've seen "estimated specs" that have for example, the max takeoff weight ranging from something like 180T to 220T.

But my guess is like yours, that the Y-20 is an improvement over the 50 year old Il-76. I just wonder how much of an improvement.

One thing that you learn about China, and very quickly, is that there is a world of difference between Chinese products made pre-2000, 2000-2010 and every 5 years since. Its like they are making incremental growths in Technology on one hand and in improving their manufacturing processes on the other. So dont judge the Y20 based on the Chinese Y7 or J6 aircraft manufacture! Judge them based on J10C, JF-17 or J20!

I have heard good stuff about the Y20 so far. The initial versions flew with Russian engines but the latest ones have a new Chinese engine specifically designed to reduce maintenance and on-wing time. If the Chinese record in the last 5 years of hitting targets stays true for the Y20, they certainly have a winner!

N.B: I visited a Chinese Electronic Appliance factory for a corporate film thingie once. I will never make the mistake of underestimating the Chinese ever again. Those guys have taken manufacturing to a fine art!

Their factories are like mini frikkin cities! Entirely self contained with apartment complexes, glitzy hospitals, malls etc. And flexible enough where individual lines are manufacturing electronic hub motors for EVs one day and Toasters on the next! You have to see it to believe it!

And have you seen the manufacturing industries built around their HSR projects? WOWSA!

kitplane01 wrote:

But my guess is like yours, that the Y-20 is an improvement over the 50 year old Il-76. I just wonder how much of an improvement.

The Y-20 is far superior to the Il-76. I would put it second behind the Kawasaki C-2 if you want a large strategic airlifter. The C-2 has the widest cargo bay of all airlifters in production.



The Y-20 having 2 feet more cargo bay width and height compared to the Il-76 makes a massive improvement. 11 feet can only fit the smallest military helicopters while 13 feet can fit nearly every military helicopters including the Chinook that the C-2 can also fit. To fit a medium sized helicopter in the Il-76 it would require significantly more disassembly and takes much more time to put back together compared to putting it in the Y-20.

The Y-20 can fit a standard truck and trailer with a shipping container due to the extra height just like the C-2.

I would put the C-390 in third place due to its extremely low cost and the A400M in forth. The C-390 actually has a similar cargo width as the Il-76 it is not as small as you think. Over the same distance the C-390 can carry two thirds of the payload compared to the A400M. A400M does 20t to 3,450 nm. C-390 does 14t to 3,140 nm.

The biggest advantage is the C-390 costs less than half the price to purchase and operate compared to the A400M. So payload moved per dollar the KC-390 is extremely attractive.

If a smaller air force needed to purchase just one airlifter type for both tactical and strategic I would pick the C-390 hands down. Compared to the traditional C-130 option the C-390 can carry the same payload 50% further or 50% more payload the same distance. The C-390 has lower cost and faster speed
and the only sacrifice is extremely short dirt/gravel performance.

If I was a medium sized country that needed to purchase two types of airlifts to cover all tactical and strategic roles then I would purchase the Kawasaki C-2 and C-27J as a combo.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee ... r_Hercules

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer ... Millennium

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M_Atlas

Noray wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

OK. I'm interested. Post something about cargo hold size. Data is awesome. Educate us.

Why don't you educate yourself before opening another skewed thread to confirm your predefined results?

Isn't that what he does with all of his threads?

Buying military equipment is always political, well nowadays buying almost anything is political, which absolutely should not be the case ever. That way you tend to end up getting overpriced crap that doesn't work, or in anyway suit your needs. This is why in the west any Russian product, whatever it is, is not really considered, no matter how good they would fit into the need.

IL-76 with original engines is yesterdays news, although they are maybe the best sounding engines ever made. With new engines this plane is still very decent, and it's really a shame they haven't done any major re-engine program. In civilian market IL-76 is still quite popular and those PS-90 engines would improve it considerably. When it comes to heavy lifting and operating in harsh environment Soviet/Russian designs, both airplanes and helicopters, have been the most capable ones for decades. It will be interesting to see how the Chinese products will enter the market in near future, nowadays they have all the money and know-how to make things happen.

kitplane01 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s no way any Russian planes is the best large cargo plane. Proof: no one other than Russians and few of their friends are flying them. Reason: lousy after sale support for starters.

OK

The Il-76 is operated by Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Azerbaijan, and Burkina Faso. That's 18 nations.

The C-17 is operated by 8 nations. The A-400 by 8 nations. The C-2 by one.

The Il-76 is old, and typically bought by poor nations because it's cheaper. Or they were a gift. But it has lots of operators. Over 1/2 the world population lives in a nation operating the IL-76, which the C-17 and A400 cannot say. (The C-130 also can.)

India, Algeria, and Egypt are three nations that the west would sell planes to, but keep their Il-76s. (If Germany will sell you a pair of MEKO 200's or France a bunch of Rafales, they will probably sell you a transport aircraft.)

By the way, the Il-76 probably DOES have bad after sales support.

One wonders the relevancy of population to this topic. You seem to like grabbing numbers off wiki and argue for positions entirely borne from those numbers. Military planners(or any sort of planners really) don’t just check some stats and then build their multimillion dollar procurement plan around that.

Now for the elephant not in the room, yet...

Will there be an AN124 refresh / next gen / 2.0? Wiki states lots of design work but no prototype of an updated design flying.

Other than wiki - does anyone else have anything more reliable / recent to add on new builds with improvements (engines / wings / avionics / stretch etc)? I know the Ukrainians and Russians are not together on this - but will someone forge ahead with it?

CDNlaxdad wrote:

Now for the elephant not in the room, yet...

Will there be an AN124 refresh / next gen / 2.0? Wiki states lots of design work but no prototype of an updated design flying.

Other than wiki - does anyone else have anything more reliable / recent to add on new builds with improvements (engines / wings / avionics / stretch etc)? I know the Ukrainians and Russians are not together on this - but will someone forge ahead with it?

Russia does not have a recent history of successfully making new designs, and getting them into volume production.

vlaakko wrote:

When it comes to heavy lifting and operating in harsh environment Soviet/Russian designs, both airplanes and helicopters, have been the most capable ones for decades.

You mean Russian equipment operators have little or no safety procedures. They fly when the aircraft is broken. They will risk lives and fly poor equipment into dangerous situations. Their equipment then breaks or crashes at say 10% of the lifespan of western equipment. That Il-76 crash investigation I posted above showed it flew only around 1357 hours in a 20 year period. Servicing paperwork was missing. This is not my opinion this is on the crash investigation document.

The C-17 aircraft have flown that many hours in a single year. With the whole fleet planned to do 1,000 hours a year for 30 years to give a 30,000 hour fatigue life. Kawasaki could easily put a massive 70t of payload into the C-2, takeoff and land no problem to score wiki points. That short flight with double of the rated payload would consume thousands of hours of official fatigue life and the C-2 aircraft could fly the next day. Though western safety procedures would put the aircraft straight into heavy maintenance. Russians would drink vodka, celebrate the record and fly it again the next day.

If western equipment was operated dangerously into extreme conditions it would be safer and break less often than Russian equipment.

RJMAZ wrote:

vlaakko wrote:

When it comes to heavy lifting and operating in harsh environment Soviet/Russian designs, both airplanes and helicopters, have been the most capable ones for decades.

You mean Russian equipment operators have little or no safety procedures. They fly when the aircraft is broken. They will risk lives and fly poor equipment into dangerous situations. Their equipment then breaks or crashes at say 10% of the lifespan of western equipment. That Il-76 crash investigation I posted above showed it flew only around 1357 hours in a 20 year period. Servicing paperwork was missing. This is not my opinion this is on the crash investigation document.

The C-17 aircraft have flown that many hours in a single year. With the whole fleet planned to do 1,000 hours a year for 30 years to give a 30,000 hour fatigue life. Kawasaki could easily put a massive 70t of payload into the C-2, takeoff and land no problem to score wiki points. That short flight with double of the rated payload would consume thousands of hours of official fatigue life and the C-2 aircraft could fly the next day. Though western safety procedures would put the aircraft straight into heavy maintenance. Russians would drink vodka, celebrate the record and fly it again the next day.

If western equipment was operated dangerously into extreme conditions it would be safer and break less often than Russian equipment.

Not to mention the total lack of professionalism on the part of many of these Eastern block operators...

I will recall one incident where an IL-76 touched down short during bad weather at Trenton, crashed into the airport perimeter fence, taking out 150ft of it, before it then managed to climb out, trailing part of the fence from its landing gear and peppered with damage to its belly.

However, that wasn’t enough to prompt the crew to declare an emergency. According to the report, the crew climbed the airplane, still trailing barbed wire, to 3,000 feet and entered a hold for an hour. They then decided to divert to fog-free Ottawa, about 100 nm away.

Ottawa airport officials were notified by the folks at Trenton that the airplane had hit a fence and they rolled emergency gear for the landing. The IL-76 landed uneventfully and went directly to an FBO. There, with help from the emergency workers, the crew untangled the barbed wire and took off again for Trenton, where the cargo was unloaded. In Trenton, it was revealed the aircraft had sustained "substantial damage" and the events were classified by the Transportation Safety Board as an accident rather than an incident. See the whole incident report here:

https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... d2007O0755

And another one that's my favourite:

https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... d2007O2179

An IL-76 had just landed at CFB Trenton during the usual morning fog like normal from Iceland and shut down in a parking spot and before being re-started and repositioned to a different parking spot on the ramp. The flight crew did not mention anything unusual had happened. It wasn't until base officials noticed a large quantity of wood debris on the runway during a runway inspection a half hour after the landing, did base officials suspect something had happened. As the IL-76 was the only movement so far that morning, airport officials inspected the IL-76, where they determined that the aircraft had crashed into a tree/trees about a half mile short of the runway. There was little visible damage to the aircraft (smudges/scratches) but the landing gear (especially the right main landing gear) appeared to have taken the brunt of the in-flight collision.

ThePointblank wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

vlaakko wrote:

When it comes to heavy lifting and operating in harsh environment Soviet/Russian designs, both airplanes and helicopters, have been the most capable ones for decades.

You mean Russian equipment operators have little or no safety procedures. They fly when the aircraft is broken. They will risk lives and fly poor equipment into dangerous situations. Their equipment then breaks or crashes at say 10% of the lifespan of western equipment. That Il-76 crash investigation I posted above showed it flew only around 1357 hours in a 20 year period. Servicing paperwork was missing. This is not my opinion this is on the crash investigation document.

The C-17 aircraft have flown that many hours in a single year. With the whole fleet planned to do 1,000 hours a year for 30 years to give a 30,000 hour fatigue life. Kawasaki could easily put a massive 70t of payload into the C-2, takeoff and land no problem to score wiki points. That short flight with double of the rated payload would consume thousands of hours of official fatigue life and the C-2 aircraft could fly the next day. Though western safety procedures would put the aircraft straight into heavy maintenance. Russians would drink vodka, celebrate the record and fly it again the next day.

If western equipment was operated dangerously into extreme conditions it would be safer and break less often than Russian equipment.

Not to mention the total lack of professionalism on the part of many of these Eastern block operators...

I will recall one incident where an IL-76 touched down short during bad weather at Trenton, crashed into the airport perimeter fence, taking out 150ft of it, before it then managed to climb out, trailing part of the fence from its landing gear and peppered with damage to its belly.

However, that wasn’t enough to prompt the crew to declare an emergency. According to the report, the crew climbed the airplane, still trailing barbed wire, to 3,000 feet and entered a hold for an hour. They then decided to divert to fog-free Ottawa, about 100 nm away.

Ottawa airport officials were notified by the folks at Trenton that the airplane had hit a fence and they rolled emergency gear for the landing. The IL-76 landed uneventfully and went directly to an FBO. There, with help from the emergency workers, the crew untangled the barbed wire and took off again for Trenton, where the cargo was unloaded. In Trenton, it was revealed the aircraft had sustained "substantial damage" and the events were classified by the Transportation Safety Board as an accident rather than an incident. See the whole incident report here:

https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... d2007O0755

And another one that's my favourite:

https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... d2007O2179

An IL-76 had just landed at CFB Trenton during the usual morning fog like normal from Iceland and shut down in a parking spot and before being re-started and repositioned to a different parking spot on the ramp. The flight crew did not mention anything unusual had happened. It wasn't until base officials noticed a large quantity of wood debris on the runway during a runway inspection a half hour after the landing, did base officials suspect something had happened. As the IL-76 was the only movement so far that morning, airport officials inspected the IL-76, where they determined that the aircraft had crashed into a tree/trees about a half mile short of the runway. There was little visible damage to the aircraft (smudges/scratches) but the landing gear (especially the right main landing gear) appeared to have taken the brunt of the in-flight collision.

Regardless of the professionalism of the pilots, that seems like one tough plane!

ThePointblank wrote:

--- lots of pilot insanity, redacted for mental health purposes ---

Wow. Wow.

Of course. Pilot's standards are tied to maintenance levels. Wouldn't make any sense to have top-notch maintenance if you have no $$$ left to pay and train good pilots.

ThePointblank wrote:

Not to mention the total lack of professionalism on the part of many of these Eastern block operators....

This is my favourite il-76 video

https://youtu.be/UZGXwbPfwQs

They push their equipment to their limits just to match western equipment. Increase that MTOW another 20t and look at that climb rate.

The C-2 at MTOW would have taken off in half the distance.