Read the forum code of contact
By: - 5th January 2018 at 02:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Soviet picked IL-76 as it's already in production and already build up good service records and reliability. That always a plus side.
Chinese however specifically want Il-76 based platform for their aborted A-50I program.
US pretty much the same requirements, already produced design, with good serviceability and availability.
By: - 5th January 2018 at 03:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When the U.S. AWACS was originated in the late 60s, an airliner was the logical...or only...choice. The Lockheed C-141 was out of production and obviously the C-5 was too big and expensive.
Likewise the C-17 is a fairly expensive aircraft with capabilities (STOL /loading features) an AWACS just doesn't need.
Besides, as previously pointed out, using an airliner makes major servicing much easier not to mention training and simulators, or as NATO did, use a ex-airliner as an inexpensive/unequipped "bounce bird".
By: - 5th January 2018 at 04:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A-100 also has wingtip pods and larger antenna for the platform size.
By: - 5th January 2018 at 05:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ok so why not the il-86 if airliners are cheaper and easier to support.
it was certainly available when the Soviets made the A-50
By: - 5th January 2018 at 05:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps the simple question is, what is Soviet/Russian airliner with the space and capacity of IL-76 that are more reliable or have population in service..?
Soviet/Russian wide body airliner that potentially can match IL-76was and still is not reliable as Western airliner. Russian airliner that begin to match Western reliability is Sukhoi Superjet..and it's too small.
Perhaps they will change the thinking when they see their new generation Airliner performance latter on (MS-21 or the C929 JV with Chinese COMAC). Until then, IL-76 family is their only choice..
By: - 5th January 2018 at 08:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One advantage was that Il-76 could operate from more airfields than Soviet airliners.
By: - 5th January 2018 at 16:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree with others that having the type already in service would be a major plus in terms of, spares, support etc, for what was going to be a small fleet.
I also recall that the US did not want a T-tail as the radar dish would wash out the horizontal stab at higher angles of attack. Obviously others have made it work, but stil seems better to have a lower stab.
By: - 5th January 2018 at 17:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And the Russians did use a military aircraft before to be converted into an AWACS, the Tu-126 Moss. As did the USA who had experience with conversion of an airliner with the EC-121 Warning Star (Super constellation)
By: - 5th January 2018 at 19:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
C-17 costs much more than a B737 or B767.
By: - 5th January 2018 at 19:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One advantage was that Il-76 could operate from more airfields than Soviet airliners.
The only airfields that and A-50 (or E-3) AWACS aircraft can operate from are those airfields which are equipped to handle such an aircraft. Mostly big airfields, with long smooth runways.
By: - 5th January 2018 at 21:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only airfields that and A-50 (or E-3) AWACS aircraft can operate from are those airfields which are equipped to handle such an aircraft. Mostly big airfields, with long smooth runways.
Big AESA radar with various pods/electronics in wing, nose and tail make aircraft even more heavier and hence airlifter is needed for shorter runway. now headphone and confortable ergonomic chair is advanced enough that no need for civil airlines . AWACS also not have windows which is more common with transport . Off course too wide transport like C17/Y20 not suitable.
By: - 5th January 2018 at 22:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Il-62M meanwhile was too small and starting to fade into obsolescence by then, same with the M-4 which wasn't even in production anymore.
The Il-62M is bigger than the Boeing 707(E-3) surely - it's certainly more powerful? Also the Il-62 has a tremendous range, a lot better than the Il-76, and it was also still in production till the 1990s.
But no doubt the Soviet military made the right choice.
By: - 6th January 2018 at 00:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A-100 will I am sure used technologies developed for IL-478 that give enhanced range plus high production rate upto 21 a year for IL476/IL478/A100 make over all cost cheaper along with same pilot training.
By: - 6th January 2018 at 01:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good comments
The T-tail issue is something interesting. is it still a problem in Russian based AWACS as the Il-76 is a T-Tail design?
And glad some one else also thinks the Il-96 would have served as a better basis for AWACS than the Il-76.
I am also surprised the Il-76 had more range than the 86, although I still stand that the 86 would have been a better platform.
Its just as big, same era, mass produced.
With lighter radars and more forms now available, I suspect the MC-21 could also serve as another platform for a smaller AWACS.
Similar to the balance beam awacs 737. Could be useful for export, especially countries like Kazakhstan.
By: - 6th January 2018 at 02:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its worth noting the il-86 airframe has been used for other military applications so I don't buy the (il-86 is not suited for military) use
By: - 6th January 2018 at 04:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its worth noting the il-86 airframe has been used for other military applications so I don't buy the (il-86 is not suited for military) use
Chinese also use Tu-154M but it does not mean it is suitable for AWACS. small AWACS like Saab-2000 or E-7 are ineffective when you consider fighter radars power. fighter also fly higher than AWACS. MIG-35 is 19kim altitude.
The antenna on E767 is 9 meter. 19 people on board.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080213085127/http://boeing.com:80/defense-space/ic/awacs/767/767specs.html
By: - 6th January 2018 at 04:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
its several generational leap in capability.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2013-09-06/russian-air-force-shows-upgraded-awacs-and-plans-new-one
The defense ministry has presented us with its vision and specification. It calls for the new aircraft to be far better than any of the in-service types in Russia and abroad. We are working hard to meet their requirements,” Kobzev told AIN. The A-100 will use the Il-476 platform and an all-new active phased-array radar from the Vega company. This aircraft is expected to fly in 2016
By: - 6th January 2018 at 06:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another possible reason is that. Since 1969 The Soviet Councils of Defense Ministry Commission already asked derivative of Il-76 (named Il-70 Before) To be AEW and OKB illyushin simply go ahead with that request without considering any other possible platform.
Tu-154 was considered as AEW BUT there are difficulties associated with integration of equipment and aerodynamics.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 5th January 2018 at 01:45
ive been wondering, why did the Soviets/Russians went with the Il-76 as the airframe for their AWACS rather than an airliner, like the Il-86/96 etc? (same applies for its customers like China and India)
US designs tended to use airliners i.e. 707, 767, 737 (balance beam)
Or conversely we could ask.. why not C-17 for awacs over 767 and 737s?