How to turn a civilian Il-96 into a tanker, and a Tu-204 into an air missile carrier


The ice has broken. From talk about the need to transfer to the liners of Soviet projects and increase the volume of their production in Russia, they began to move on to business. S86 Airlines is ready to be the first to switch to the operation of Il-96 and Il-7 aircraft. It turns out that these “cars are normal, they fly”, even if they consume more kerosene than foreign competitors. Aeroflot and Red Wings may soon return to using Tu-214 medium-haul airliners. Now it will be up to them to modernize and remotorize them with modern and more economical PD-35 and PD-14 engines, and the country will be able to get out of the trap into which the systemic liberals have driven it. But in this article I would like to talk about a possible military purpose, it would seem, civilian liners.


The fact is that Soviet aircraft, based entirely on the domestic component base, equipped with redundant electronic and mechanical control systems that radically increase their reliability, are excellent platforms for military special aircraft. So, let's go through in general terms how the modernized Il-96 and Tu-204/214 can be useful for the needs of the RF Ministry of Defense.

IL-96


Il-96 is a Soviet-designed wide-body airliner designed for operation on long-distance routes. It is extremely reliable; in the entire history of its operation, not a single accident or catastrophe has occurred that resulted in human casualties. It is not surprising that it was on its basis that the "presidential aircraft" Il-96-300PU was developed, on which the head of state and the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation fly.

At first, IL-96 can be used as a convenient air command post.

Secondly, on its basis it was supposed to develop a long-range tanker aircraft. This modification was named Il-96-400TZ, and it was supposed to serve for refueling strategic bombers-missile carriers of the Tu-160 and Tu-95 types directly in the air, which would significantly expand the capabilities of our Long-Range Aviation.

Unfortunately, this promising project failed due to the difference in the approaches of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and the Ilyushin company. The military department demanded a deep modernization of aircraft, including the installation of electronic warfare systems and emergency abandonment of the aircraft crew, which would take at least 4-5 years. But the contractor wanted to complete the order quickly, without a full R&D cycle, in 1-2 years. By that time, two of the existing Il-96-400Ts, which were supposed to be used as a platform, would have aged even more. The project did not take place, but with the revival of the serial production of the IL-96, he could get a second life.

Thirdly, a huge wide-body airliner designed to carry up to 435 passengers, will be in demand by the Russian Ministry of Defense for the rapid transfer of military contingents. This, of course, is not about landing, but this is many times more than the IL-76 can transfer. In our difficult time, this option is worth a lot.

Tu-204 / 214


About the numerous advantages of this Soviet-designed liner, we detail reasoned previously. Now it’s worth talking about how this aircraft can be useful to our military.

At first, Tu-214 is already used by the RF Ministry of Defense as a reconnaissance aircraft. This is a version of the Tu-214R (product 411), which performs the tasks of radio engineering and optical-electronic reconnaissance. In total, there are 2 of them in our troops, a contract has been signed for the third. Not enough, given that Russia has already entered the stage of a "hot" confrontation with the collective West and its Ukrainian "proxies". Obviously, the number of Tu-214Rs needs to be increased, and it also makes sense to build a full-fledged AWACS aircraft with a rotating radar like the A-214 on the basis of the Tu-100.

Secondly, it has long been known about the plans of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation to create an anti-submarine aircraft similar to the American Poseidon on the basis of the Tu-204/214. Given the acute shortage and aging of the Il-38 and Tu-142 PLO aircraft, the idea seems to be very correct. On this platform, it is possible and necessary to create modern anti-submarine aviation to combat the nuclear submarines of a potential enemy.

Thirdly, the transformation of the peaceful Tu-204/214 into a real combat aircraft, capable of delivering missile strikes from long distances, suggests itself. And it's not a joke. Some time ago we told about the American project CMCA (Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft). Within its framework, on the basis of the Boeing-747 civilian airliner, a special modification was developed containing 9 drums, 8 air-launched cruise missiles in each, in the internal compartment. The launch must be carried out through a special hatch in the tail compartment, all AGM-86 ALCM can be fired and go to the target in 15 minutes. The use of a passenger liner as a platform makes it possible to use the large range of such aircraft and their internal space to accommodate various radio equipment.

The project is undoubtedly very interesting, and it is a pity that it is directed against Russia. But Russia can pay back in kind by turning the Tu-204/214 liner into an airborne missile carrier. 72 missiles, or how many can really fit there, this is a very serious strike power. For example, such an aircraft would be quite useful today when neutralizing military infrastructure facilities in Nezalezhnaya.

If a carrier of dozens of air-launched missiles is developed on the basis of the Tu-204/214, then let the countries of the NATO bloc continuously wonder which “Carcass” is flying along their border, peaceful or combat.
20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. faiver Offline faiver
    faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 11: 20
    0
    It is extremely reliable; in the entire history of its operation, not a single accident or catastrophe has occurred that resulted in human casualties.

    - the author, well, not beautiful ... how many of them were released? And so the plane is comfortable, I flew on it as a passenger, I liked it ...
    1. Vladimir Orlov Offline Vladimir Orlov
      Vladimir Orlov (Vladimir) 25 March 2022 00: 52
      +1
      How many Boeing Dreamliners were produced until one after another fell down ..?
      IL 96 is a further development of IL 86, which was released enough and they also did not kill a single passenger. Accordingly, the IL 96 took into account the shortcomings. And 4 engines - the level of reliability is completely different (turn on the probability theory).
      Better yet, you “faiver” just fly dreamliners ...
      1. faiver Offline faiver
        faiver (Andrei) 25 March 2022 01: 11
        -1
        Better yet, you “faiver” just fly dreamliners ...

        - fly on them yourself ...

        IL 86, which were released enough

        - 106 aircraft were released, these 106 account for 41 accidents, including two with casualties (crew members)
        And I'm not saying that the IL-96 is bad, I flew it as a passenger twice or thrice, everything suited me ...
  2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 11: 26
    +1
    Quote: faiver
    - the author, well, not beautiful ... how many of them were released? And so the plane is comfortable, I flew on it as a passenger, I liked it ...

    And how beautiful? Teach. hi
    1. faiver Offline faiver
      faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 12: 17
      0
      Well, the accident rate directly depends on the number, for example, the Mriya was also an absolutely accident-free aircraft, no crashes and casualties ...
      1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 12: 22
        0
        So, what exactly is ugly?
        1. faiver Offline faiver
          faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 12: 30
          0
          We take a Boeing 777, more than 1,6 thousand were produced. pieces and counting accidents - 12 pieces, now we take the Il-96, 32 pieces were produced. and there are no incidents ... that's how it will be honest ...
          1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
            Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 13: 24
            -2
            And yet, what exactly is ugly? Or have you already realized that your nitpick was incorrect?
            1. faiver Offline faiver
              faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 13: 32
              +1
              yah? what is incorrect? I’ll say it straight out - this is called a juggling of facts, and I’m not saying that the plane is bad, quite the contrary, but you adjust the solution to a ready-made answer, and you can also calculate not only the ratio of the number of aircraft produced to flight accidents, but the real total flight hours, and then it turns out that the IL-96 almost does not fly, hence your trouble-free operation ... hi
              1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 13: 35
                -2
                I wrote that the plane was reliable and there was not a single accident.

                Il-96 is a Soviet-designed wide-body airliner designed for operation on long-distance routes. It is extremely reliable; in the entire history of its operation, not a single accident or catastrophe has occurred that resulted in human casualties. It is not surprising that it was on its basis that the "presidential aircraft" Il-96-300PU was developed, on which the head of state and the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation fly.

                What exactly is the fraud? I gave bare and indisputable facts, but you are engaged in their interpretation at your own discretion. You are absolutely wrong.
                A smart person would have stopped long ago. Stop.
                1. faiver Offline faiver
                  faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 13: 49
                  +1
                  if you don't understand, then oh...
                  Well, let's explain how to children - The fewer aircraft of a certain brand are produced and the less time these aircraft spend in flights, the less chance they have of getting into an accident. We take the Boeing 777 again and divide the number of aircraft (1600) by the number of accidents (12) and we get the accident rate of 133 aircraft per 1 accident, i.e. there are already 130 accidents for 0 aircraft, while the Il-96 has 32 aircraft for 0 accidents, i.e. the B-777 has 4 times higher security, but according to flight hours it will be completely seams ...
                  1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                    Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 March 2022 14: 34
                    -2
                    You stubbornly do not understand this. I gave the bare and indisputable facts about the reliability of the IL-96. If I wrote that the IL-96 is the most reliable in the world and better in this regard than its competitors, then we could deal with your insinuations. But I, as a smart person with a basic legal education, did not do this, so you have no reason to distract me from serious matters and waste my time on all sorts of nonsense.
                    With this, I conclude the discussion. If you still do not understand your mistake, I feel sorry for you. hi
                    1. faiver Offline faiver
                      faiver (Andrei) 24 March 2022 14: 43
                      +3
                      But I'm like a smart person with a basic legal education

                      A smart person would have stopped long ago

                      Attempts to show yourself smarter and more educated than your opponent are also very ugly, and thank you, but I don’t need your pity ... hi
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Victor frost Offline Victor frost
                    Victor frost (Victor Frost) 25 March 2022 17: 33
                    0
                    What kind of mathematical methods do you have? Enlighten please! Higher Arithmetic? To calculate the accident rate for 130 flight units, the result will be 130:133=0,977..... But not "0". Did you even go to school?
  3. wolf46 Offline wolf46
    wolf46 24 March 2022 12: 00
    +1
    If a carrier of dozens of air-launched missiles is developed on the basis of the Tu-204/214, then let the countries of the NATO bloc continuously wonder which “Carcass” is flying along their border, peaceful or combat.

    Like a BZHRK? Offset!)
  4. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 24 March 2022 13: 45
    +2
    Good thing needed
    And most importantly, almost everything can be turned into a weapon in this way.
    From the iron to the plane.

    The main thing is to be.

    The site has already talked about the possibility of carrying anti-ship missiles with the civil ekranoplan Chaika (not counting the use for landing and other things).
    How it is attached, which ones - it does not matter. But you can manually drop rockets from the trunk - launched from the water, in any case.

    The only problem is that there are no seagulls. Not ordered and not put into production

    The same with Il and TU - if there were planes, some part could be produced for military needs.

    But while they are gone, you can safely dream about how starships will surf the open spaces, starting from the Tu-204/214 or Il-96.
  5. 1_2 Offline 1_2
    1_2 (Ducks are flying) 24 March 2022 15: 08
    0
    you can stuff a lot of things into the belly of such voluminous aircraft, and then dump them)
  6. Panikovsky Offline Panikovsky
    Panikovsky (Mikhail Samuelevich Panikovsky) 24 March 2022 16: 51
    +2
    There will be a state defense order, there will be a conversation, but until then S. Marzhetsky is all chatter and your idle speculation. Thank God, our armed forces are not driven by amateur locksmiths Polesovs.
  7. Navigator Offline Navigator
    Navigator (Andrei) 24 March 2022 17: 32
    +1
    The fact that Mr. Marzhetsky is a storyteller is not a secret for anyone. This is his trick, to assume various unrealistic situations. As an option: "tomorrow Russia may strike at Poland" Or maybe not. The main thing is to blurt out something, and then wind up a bunch of assumptions on it. Well, after all, you have to write something in order to earn money, and then react nervously to fair comments from readers, puffing out your cheeks.
  8. Oleg_5 Offline Oleg_5
    Oleg_5 (Oleg) 24 March 2022 19: 24
    +1
    The question is not HOW. The question is rather WHY?
    To cram the non-pushable when there are plenty of products used for their intended purpose (in the military sphere).
    It would be more interesting - how to convert a bomber into a passenger liner?
    With the second we have problems .... with the quantity.
    Although in general, the answer is also already known - no way.