I saw this video posted over at Flight Global but watching it through what struck me was just how innovative Soviet era cargo and transport aircraft actually were.
Watch the video, great stuff
Think DefenceUK Defence Issues and the odd container or two
Imagine the amount of cargo containers they could carry. I only wish our airborne forces had so many aircraft at their disposal. Wish the SDSR had somehow managed to make a new airborne division amongst all the cuts!
when i was down in the islands that can’t mentioned in ’99 we had 2 big cargo drops, one done by an IL-76 and the other (2 replacemnet tornados after 2 seperate bird strikes in a week) by the antonov 124. It was remarked how would we cope without the russians by some of the more senior amongst us!!!
PS the paymaster pooped his pants when the russian crew popped down to the pay office to pay for the refuel, opened a briefcase on his desk and gave him $25,000 in cash!
PPS did anyone see the programme on BBC4 last night about when britain were the world leaders in military jets, it was awesome lots of hunter,meteor,venom,english electric lightening, V-force, canberra and even TSR2 well worth a catch up on iplayer
Paulg
Antonov is great for moving things but you’d need to pay me a lot to get in and fly with the Russian crew!!
Yes indeed. From the miles m52 thru to were we are today it would make one hell of a play with how we screwed things up in the world of aerospace. Don’t know if you’ve read it but empire of the clouds is quite a gd read.
@ Mark
Yep they like a drink some of those Russian crews. More than a couple seen a little worse for wear when exiting an Antonov at Leuchars on the F3 changeover run.
It’s the best book I’ve read that covers that era and all it’s problems. I found it a bit of an eye opener, particularly how the aircraft companies back then operated. Some of them seem wilfully to throw away any advantage that they had.
@ PaulG
“It was remarked how would we cope without the russians by some of the more senior amongst us!!!”
C-17 would fill the hole, much to the detriment of everything else…Afghan and supplying the RN with spares. But nothing compares to that Antanov beast! I was present at Wattisham once when an AN-124 came in to return a couple of apaches and take their replacement back there. Mighty impressive.
The wings of russia series is a fantastic little gem… especially the eraknoplane and sea-plane part…authentic narrator! But also not full of the ‘anti west’ shite you see on RT…but a good look in behind the past and present of the kit we ‘face’.
Just a question that popped up in my mind reading the comments on this thread…
I assume that the Typhoons down at MPA must come home every now and then for deep maintenance at BAE. Do they and their replacements fly all the way from/to those islands (with appropriate tanker support) or are they part disassembled and carried in Antonov 124 or similar?
I think flying them would be a great opportunity to train the reinforcement drill, though expensive.
@ WW
The first lot (and are still there) that took over from the F3s were tanked down there via ASI. The plan is to keep them down there for a lot longer than the F3s. It will be quite a while before we have to send a replacement down there, baring any mishaps.
@ Topman
Thanks. Makes sense. Cheaper to fly specialist maintenance crew and spare parts in on the regular MOD flights as required than chartering an Antonov.
@ paul g – what was the documentary called?
Topman it is an eye opener in many ways the same mistakes keep getting made even today some of those same issues still exist.
Swimming trunks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01m81f5/Jet!_When_Britain_Ruled_the_Skies_Military_Marvels/
Part two next week
@Mark
You’re probably right what with Nimrod and HC it shouldn’t really be a surprise to me. How old fashioned the companies were, with things like half a dozen different canteens depending on the level of manager (like the military Mess I suppose) the attitude to safety, feedback from Test Pilots ignored and all sorts of other glaring issues. As they say there’s nothing new under the sun so I suppose it still goes on. I would think today it would be harder to get away with such standards.
‘some of those same issues still exist.’
Could you say what issues?
@ Mark – thanks!
Topman
I think there is a feeling of professional engineers, mechanics and fitters being marginalised and being rushed and pressured into things on the wim of accountants and project managers. Very low cost outsourcing to significant less qualified groups is having a real impact on scrap rates, technical documentation quality and IMO safety standards. I think this is leading to less qualified people in more senior positions than was the case in the past. This is a generalisation more than one specific project or company.
I think also the rush to all composite planes without full understanding of the inplacations and thru life air worthiness have caused some to make comparisons with the comet and metal fatgiue.
Fantadtic video… Soviet aircraft are fantastic, built to be really tough not like our western delicate flowers. The fighter aircraft are my favourite . The heavy lift transports are very impressive even if many are clearly copied er inspired by western types!! The Il76 is clearly a c141 copy snd what about the Russian D3 Dakota
Did we ever hear a final answer on RR engine fault on Aussie Airbus -last I saw appeared to implicate poor manufacture of oil pipe by sub contractor. Not concentric bore?
Also later report of compressor surge in flight!
M52. TRS2. Comet, Nimrod, 280 rifle, Blue Streak, Alvis, failue of home grown windgenerators – all makes you weep!
We did however make hydrocarbon reformers work and convert to natural gas – often think more by luck than judgement.
Would it be too snarky of me to point out on a British blog that the Brits had a chance to own some Antonovs of their own for well within their budget. But they decided to go for C-17s even though the deal ran OVER their budget in the competitive tender?
@ arkhangelsk
They were an option yes, but were removed for political reasons. They were also some technical reasons, but primarly no-one wanted to stuck with the Russians as the EA, the primary manufacturer and spares supplier. It was seen as far too risky.
no-one wanted to stuck with the Russians as the EA, the primary manufacturer and spares supplier. It was seen as far too risky
Surely this could have been resolved, had there been the will, if only by filling a shed at Marshalls with bits.
A squadron of AN-124 would have solved the FRES requirement nicely:-) and made NATO and EU partners very happy indeed.
@ Alex
‘Surely this could have been resolved, had there been the will, if only by filling a shed at Marshalls with bits.’
Not really that’s a small bit, we would have been totally reliant on them for all sorts of things. Mods, overhaul of spare parts, various databases needed, training many of them ongoing infact allsorts of things. How risky it was is open to debate, but there’s none about how much we would have had to rely on them. Those that made the choice though that and other issues made it far too risky.
Imagaine as well if the RAF had invested in AN124′s as part of a shared use PFI, the MoD would have made a fortune and probably paid for any conversion, updating or over stocking of spares.
Interesting thought don’t you think?
arkhangelsk, welcome to Think Defence by the way
Alex
Unfortunately is not just spare parts. You have to be able to get assured access to the manufacture documentation and the various analysis work done there to assure air worthiness for the length of service. For example marshals have access to Lockheed documentation on herc and tristar to enable current maintenance capability. Could we be assured of the same in antonov if we were involved in an operation not to Russia’s liking.
Must admit, I am waiting for a Western nation to ‘go Russian’ for a major aeoronautical project, I think if we could get over the mutual suspicion that still exists I reckon there are many interesting opportunities to be had for both sides.
My current favourite Ruski bit fo kit is the KA32, have you seen the lift capacity of that thing compared to a Merlin. Then when you have got back on your chair, compare the size and cost.
Must admit, I am waiting for a Western nation to ‘go Russian’ for a major aeoronautical project
seems a company in the US has bought 10 beriev be-200 fire fighting aircraft, it’s a start!
Antonov is a ukranian company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov
so the russians are not involved
@TD
You’ve already seen it a little bit with the Yak-130 morphing into the M-346 – although that project does go to show how much work has to go into bringing a Russian plane up to Western standards, they’re practically 2 different aircraft by the time Alenia have finished with them. Whilst the sticker price is seductive, the TCO can look pretty horrible, thanks to their generally low availability and complicated/labour-intensive maintenance regimes. You only have to look at the German experience with the DDR Mig-29s (admittedly made in Soviet times) and the reasoning for the Indians rejecting the Mig-35 for MMRCA. There’s a MMRCA report somewhere on the web, which talks about the Indian experience of operating Russian aircraft – not the sort of thing that normally gets talked about, but it wasn’t very complimentary.
That’s aside from issues like what happens to spares/upgrades if we do something that Russia doesn’t like – invade Syria, invade Iran, etc etc. That’s a significant “cost” even if it doesn’t show up in the balance sheet other than having to buy shedloads of spares as insurance.
Then again, the MiG-29 and Su-35 are far more complex than any transport type. And the complexity is concentrated in the bits the Soviets weren’t very good at. Also, who knows what East German maintenance was like?
I find it hard to imagine that if we were picking a fight with Iran, and the Russians objected to that degree, we’d just let them turn up in Cambridge or Brize or wherever and take away all the documentation, no peeping or crafty backup copies, no sir. The USSR would have been a different kettle of fish, of course, but I suspect they would bitch a bit, wait until everyone forgot about it, then smell the money.
Obviously, if they *really* objected, long-term maintenance plans would suddenly be very much beside the point.
But then, we’re apparently OK with relying on a foreign power for the maintenance of the rockets underneath the nuclear deterrent, and for pretty much everything about the TLAMs.
At the time it was proposed, ISTR the project would have involved re-opening the Antonov production line, and in fact that was why they were interested. I would think the finished product would have been substantially westernised, probably a completely new avionics suite, a lot of systems changes, and quite likely new engines. The noise and fuel issues might even have needed changes to the airframe – the project to make the Il-76 street legal in Europe ended up with a very different plane.
An-124-210 Joint proposal with Air Foyle to meet UK’s Short Term Strategic Airlifter (STSA) requirement, with Rolls-Royce RB211-524H-T engines, each rated 60,600 lbf (264 kN) and Honeywell avionics—STSA competition abandoned in August 1999, reinstated, and won by the Boeing C-17A.
So western engines and avionics so the only bit you need ukranian help is with the airframe. air foyle would of helped with the cost and some of the running, sounded like a good idea. plus the rolls engines were more powerful then the russia ones so would have a higher payload.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Foyle
interesting that air foyle felt there was something funny about the MOD desision prosses in picking the c17 which was more expensive.
you can argue the C17 has the ability to land on short runway and in rough fields which the an124 cannot
@Think Defence “Must admit, I am waiting for a Western nation to ‘go Russian’ for a major aeoronautical project” – Tornado replacement: SU34?
Wait a minute… I was going to say that
“Tornado replacement: SU34?”
- or none, relative to the plans in train
If one would insist on a fast jet, for the role/ mission, is there anything missing?
SU-34, yes please i said that before on here, even better if you stuck the F135 in it, hoofing amount of power!!!
@TD
“My current favourite Ruski bit fo kit is the KA32, have you seen the lift capacity of that thing compared to a Merlin. Then when you have got back on your chair, compare the size and cost.”
OK, mine is the KA-226, or more specific the concept. A bit small and too slow, IMO. But the idea to have a cabin and a configurable cargo-space behind is really appreciated.
The other obvious candidate for adoption would be the PAK-FA…
“The other obvious candidate for adoption would be the PAK-FA…” – is there space for a lift fan? Perhaps if we did away with half of the weapons bay and sacrificed a third of the range. No hang on, that’s a stupid idea.
What do people think about using gliders as a way to increase our cargo capacity? Their main assault role has been taken over by the helicopter but they can still carry cargo – the Me 321 Gigant could carry 24 tons and thats WW2 technology.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_321
Well I wanted an AN-225 with an interim HOTOL on its back.
SU-34 or FOAS stretched Typoon with conformal tanks, internal bombay, stretched fuselage,satcom & higher bypass EJ200? In the fifties, we would have had faith in our own industry.
I have made the point before that the worlds NGOs and Un etc, when they need to get disaster relief stuff to some third world toilet, always turn up mob handed in IL76, or AN12- AN 124 etc.
A possitivly Alister Mclain/Hammond Innis character, I defended in the late 90′s who had flown everything everywhere, all his life, Was full of praise for russian transport planes, particulalry for opperating on rough strips. The only western plane he said was there equal was the Dakota…..
Well the simple fact is the C17 was a low risk and flexible solution, leasing it and eventually buying it gave us an aircraft that meets most of our needs. The C17 is tied into the huge USAF logistics and training system making it cost effective in the long term. The RAF and MOD are very happy with them hence the procurement of four more airframes and a desire to buy a couple more if the money can be spared.
If the UK needs something bigger then the AN124 is leased on an adhoc basis.
As others have pointed out the Rolls-Royce powered AN124 STSA had way too many what ifs in respect of maintenance and support, also it was a paper aircraft at the time requiring development and certification. C17 came directly off the Boeing production line out of USAF delivery slots. It had no UK specific kit or modifications to delay things and was taken “as is”. For the vast majority of missions the C17 is big enough!