The Secret Il-96: Who is Russia Building the New Giant Aircraft for?

24 050 51

A wide-body Il-96 aircraft of an unknown modification has been built in Voronezh, and the runway is being extended for testing new aircraft. According to materials published by UAC, production of the country's only wide-body aircraft has resumed after a several-year hiatus.

It's worth noting, however, that in Russia this aircraft is used not for mass transportation, but for special purposes. The fact is that this aircraft was designed under Soviet conditions. economics, and thus proved reliable, but unsuitable for mass transportation. Four powerful engines, a three-person crew, and numerous backup systems made the ticket price prohibitive for the average passenger.



In the USSR, the problem was solved with government subsidies, but in a market economy, airlines simply couldn't afford to maintain such aircraft. Only one of them, the special flight detachment "Rossiya," became a regular customer of the Il-96.

As a reminder, Russian President Vladimir Putin uses the Il-96-300 for his visits to other countries. Other high-ranking Russian officials also fly on these aircraft. The high cost per flight hour in this case is justified by the need for exceptional reliability. The Il-96 is made entirely of Russian components, including PS-90A engines.

This is precisely why, apparently, the new aircraft built in Voronezh will also be assigned to the special flight detachment "Rossiya." However, there's a twist to this story.

The fact is that flight tests of the new Il-96-400M modification began at the end of 2023. It features a fuselage stretched by over nine meters, more powerful PS-90A1 engines, and can accommodate up to 370 passengers. Furthermore, it is equipped with the latest navigation system, and the crew has been reduced to two.

At the same time, thanks to its system redundancy and aerodynamic design, the aircraft is no less reliable and safe than its predecessor. It likely won't be mass-produced either, as it still has four engines, making it quite fuel-hungry. However, it's likely being built not for diplomatic visits, but for the most extreme emergencies.

It's no secret that both Russia and the United States have their own so-called flying bunkers in the event of a major conflict. We have developed a command and control aircraft based on the Il-86, allowing command personnel to remain in the air for extended periods and issue orders even if ground infrastructure is destroyed by nuclear strikes.

A special version of the Il-96-300PU was created for civilian leadership, particularly the president. This aircraft also carries a significant amount of specialized equipment.

The stretched Il-96-400M is intended to replace it. Its larger dimensions allow it to accommodate modern electronic warfare and communications systems, significantly increasing its security. And, judging by the fact that the production of this modification is shrouded in secrecy and there have been no reports of it since 2023, News, and there is.

Moreover, it is currently unknown which specific Il-96 modification is being completed at the plant. However, it is quite possible that this is the Il-96-400M.

However, there's another interesting nuance. The fact is that the production of large and heavy aircraft in Voronezh was long hampered by its insufficiently long runway. Even the Il-96-300 can only land on it with a tailwind. And mass production requires a large number of test flights.

It's worth noting that the runway extension had long been hampered by purely bureaucratic processes, as it required demolition permits for several buildings. However, this week it was announced that the relevant issues had been resolved, and the runway will soon be extended.

Moreover, at the end of last year, the company announced plans to quickly hire up to two thousand workers in connection with the expansion of its production program. Thus, all these facts give reason to hope that production of long-range wide-body aircraft will soon be ramped up. This means there is a possibility of developing a version for scheduled flights.

51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. vlad127490
    vlad127490
    -1
    21 March 2026 18: 58
    Building new aircraft is very good.
    There is no need to focus on the market; we need to focus on implementing state development programs.
    Business deals with money only for itself.
    The Russian Federation needs to have about 100 Il-96 aircraft.
    The kerosene issue can be resolved through government subsidies. If the Ilyushin consumes 5 tons more kerosene than the Boeing, with equal flight performance and load, the government pays for those 5 tons.
    We need our own aircraft, since construction also means development of production.
    1. Alexey Lan
      Alexey Lan
      +4
      21 March 2026 20: 09
      We need our own aircraft, since construction also means development of production.

      And not only that. The production of aircraft components is linked to the production of similar components and devices for military aircraft. By undermining civilian aircraft manufacturing, we increase the cost and reduce the quality of military aircraft manufacturing.
    2. svoroponov
      svoroponov
      +2
      22 March 2026 14: 16
      Well, they'll tell you all sorts of things about the efficiency of our and American aircraft. You need to know that our engine's specific fuel consumption is similar to that of an American Boeing with the same load. You simply don't understand how the cost of transportation is redistributed in favor of ticket prices. Just remember how it's done on our railways. Commercial cargo flights and other carriers make money, but part of the revenue goes to cover passenger flights. It's the same for them, although some of the money also comes from ground infrastructure. It's just economics.
      1. svoroponov
        svoroponov
        +1
        22 March 2026 14: 22
        And one more thing regarding the article. Airplanes generally land with a headwind or crosswind, not a tailwind (as they take off). With a tailwind, the runway should be somewhat longer. However, for an airfield where aircraft are tested or where they conduct test flights after assembly, the runway must be long enough to accommodate landings with a tailwind, up to a certain speed.
      2. vlad127490
        vlad127490
        0
        22 March 2026 16: 11
        In my comment above, I proposed paying the airline a subsidy for the Il-96's excess kerosene consumption, meaning that the airline's kerosene costs would be the same for both the Boeing and the Il-96. It's not the airline's fault that the Il-96 consumes more kerosene. Four engines will always consume more than two.
        The state is obliged to provide its citizens with the opportunity to fly on airplanes.
        1. svoroponov
          svoroponov
          0
          22 March 2026 20: 03
          Of course, four engines consume more fuel, but not always. It's entirely possible to purchase jet fuel for government needs at very low prices (cost price) and distribute it to airlines for passenger transport, but only within the country. We need to make air travel affordable for the majority of the country's population.
          And regarding Western aircraft, you won't find out the hourly cost of an aircraft, only the hourly cost of a given company's aircraft. Do you see the difference? Internally, they're already redistributing profits and losses and trying to lower passenger prices slightly by using profits from other activities. There's also government tax assistance in this industry, and sometimes direct assistance and subsidies to the industry or individual aviation companies. Companies also have their own tricks for purchasing jet fuel and other things to reduce costs. Banks also provide loans to airlines in exchange for something from the state. In other words, it's simply lobbying for interests, not pure competition, which is nowhere to be found there.
          1. svoroponov
            svoroponov
            0
            22 March 2026 20: 26
            By the way, let me explain why the plane has four engines. When it was designed and built, the USSR didn't have engines with the required thrust for similar civilian aircraft, so three or four were included in the design.
            1. savage3000
              savage3000
              0
              23 March 2026 23: 25
              That's all true. But it's still not the case. Most likely it won't be.
    3. savage3000
      savage3000
      -5
      22 March 2026 15: 20
      I disagree. Our aircraft should be close to this in efficiency. Then subsidies will help.

      The Il-96 is a thing of the past. With four engines, subsidies are scarce.
      1. svoroponov
        svoroponov
        -1
        22 March 2026 20: 17
        That is why this new aircraft is currently under development, but with two more powerful engines.
        1. savage3000
          savage3000
          0
          23 March 2026 23: 24
          There is no such development. Don't invent it.
  2. 362
    362
    +3
    21 March 2026 20: 53
    It's all clear, the Abramovichs and other wealthy Rabinoviches will soon be switching from yachts to planes!!! And why not go fishing to Sakhalin at the end of the week? And no enemy will take away "the hard-earned wealth"!!!!
  3. Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev
    +5
    21 March 2026 21: 03
    Basically, they're building it for a bar. Naturally.
  4. esl462
    esl462
    +3
    21 March 2026 21: 04
    What nonsense, I'm even ashamed.
  5. Peace_Party
    Peace_Party
    +7
    21 March 2026 21: 20
    Isn't it possible to shorten the landing run with a headwind? (As well as during takeoff)
  6. Mikhail Nasharashev
    Mikhail Nasharashev
    +2
    21 March 2026 22: 34
    For Putin, fly away from here when the economy collapses.
    he flew away and didn't promise to return
    1. Vladimir Tuzakov
      Vladimir Tuzakov
      +3
      21 March 2026 23: 58
      (Jokingly.) It seems like what the Kremlin's denizens are preparing such a plane for—lots of suitcases full of cash, mistresses (their children are long gone), and lackeys—that's why they need a really big one...
    2. Gosh 65
      Gosh 65
      0
      22 March 2026 00: 20
      Where will he fly?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. prior
        prior
        +1
        22 March 2026 08: 26
        To Anchorage.
      3. Mikhail Nasharashev
        Mikhail Nasharashev
        0
        22 March 2026 21: 48
        What difference does it make to us, he won't take us with him anyway
  7. twice-born
    twice-born
    +3
    21 March 2026 23: 09
    Don't ordinary people care about reliability? Four engines are a plus, not a minus! One of the two fails, as often happens, and everyone gets a trophy; a hero in heaven. And the third crew member is also a dubious minus. These are all just empty excuses! The military stubbornly flies with four engines.
    Airlines and aircraft factories need to eat less! Airline tickets are unaffordable for ordinary people anyway.
    Build a beautiful airplane, develop high-tech manufacturing and science, give smart, skilled Russians jobs with excellent wages and apartments (not Indians and chinks), and somehow the 300-odd kopecks of penniless passengers will pay for your flight at a profit. More than a hundred will somehow pay for your flight on enemy twin-engine Kita Boeings!
    1. Valera75
      Valera75
      +7
      22 March 2026 04: 27
      Quote: Twice-born
      Don't ordinary people need reliability?

      I noticed this too. Either the author thinks the people are some kind of rabble who don't care about security at all and it's too expensive to spend kerosene on them, or the developers and the authorities think so.
      In general, airline executives should live a little less, and everything will be a plus for transportation. Russian Railways, they say, has no money for projects and is shutting them down, but they find 200 billion to build offices for their sluts and masseuses in the center of Moscow.
      1. twice-born
        twice-born
        +4
        22 March 2026 11: 56
        It's all true. Billionaires eat their fill, but the people aren't paid, saying it's unprofitable and we're eating our last damn meal without salt.
        The same thing happens with Russian Post, AvtoVAZ and Gazprom, the oil industry and all the monopolies.
        They award themselves hundred-million-dollar annual bonuses, in addition to multi-million-dollar salaries, but give nothing to the working people!
        Journalists work for the authorities (official and unofficial) and merely reflect and defend their opinions of us, proving their case to us. They have no conscience.
        So yes, they consider us to be rabble, serfs who will survive everything and only have to provide them with a good life!
    2. svoroponov
      svoroponov
      0
      22 March 2026 14: 26
      You just don't know how airplanes are designed. They're designed so that if you have two engines, the thrust from one should be sufficient to fly (at a minimum) and perform certain maneuvers, and land. If you have four engines, then also with two.
    3. svoroponov
      svoroponov
      0
      22 March 2026 14: 37
      Let me repeat for you. You simply don't know how airplanes are designed. They are designed so that if you have two engines, the thrust of one should be sufficient to fly (at a minimum) and perform certain maneuvers, and land. If you have four engines, then also with two.
      Regarding crew composition, it's this: if there are two engines, then two members (possibly three), and if there are three or more engines, then more. This depends on the complexity of the aircraft systems monitoring needs. On long-haul flights, in addition to the crew, a reserve pilot or even an entire crew is usually assigned to the flight. You just don't know about it, but it's true. It's also true that an aviation sheriff is present in the cabin, if necessary. But only the captain is informed of this. To everyone else, they are passengers.
      1. twice-born
        twice-born
        0
        22 March 2026 19: 11
        All this is wonderful (about the structure of airplanes and flights), and I am really not a designer, constructor, or creator of airplanes, but that’s not what we’re talking about!
        What about the fact that we no longer need the tried and true IL-96? So, you're against it?
        So what kind of wide-body aircraft can we produce now? Or do we not need a wide-body?
        1. svoroponov
          svoroponov
          +1
          22 March 2026 19: 52
          .......And what about the fact that we no longer need the tried and true IL-96, in your opinion? So, you're against it?......

          Where did you get this from? Read what I wrote carefully. Otherwise, it turns out: any question, any answer.
          1. twice-born
            twice-born
            0
            23 March 2026 08: 32
            That's what I took from your statement. And I understood your point perfectly; you're not the only one who's so smart.
            I know how airplanes are made and flights are organized there, but I don't know, and that doesn't affect the need to create the IL-96. So, I repeat, do you agree, with all your knowledge, that it should be produced now or not?
    4. savage3000
      savage3000
      -6
      22 March 2026 15: 21
      You're talking nonsense. Four engines are uneconomical. Everyone flies on two, and reliability is excellent. The plane flies perfectly on one engine. No problems at all. And it can land without engines.

      Sofa.
      1. twice-born
        twice-born
        -2
        22 March 2026 19: 26
        I'm certainly a couch potato, but I don't even claim to be an expert.
        And airline owners generally don't fly economically, even with two engines! And if you don't fly, you can save even more.
        But Russian Railways, too, is losing money on passenger transportation! Buses are also losing money in cities, and the owners are always complaining.
        Well then, let's drive carts, caring about fuel economy and the environment!
        So answer this question: is it more economical to save the lives of 350 people, including the pilots, or to save a few tons of fuel? And that's not even counting the cost of paying everyone compensation and losing the plane, not to mention the reputation!
        So you think we don't need the wide-body Il-96 right now? So what kind of wide-body long-range aircraft can we produce instead? Or are you waiting for the return of enemy aircraft?
        1. savage3000
          savage3000
          -1
          23 March 2026 23: 24
          Air transportation is a business. Private. Profitable. Period.

          Four engines don't save anything or anyone. The whole world flies on two and everything is fine.

          There will be an IL96... few people will be able to fly on it, since it will be expensive.
  8. Ivan Ivannikov
    Ivan Ivannikov
    +7
    21 March 2026 23: 16
    Regarding the short runway, that's nonsense. In 88, the first Il-96 took off from Khodynka, where the runway is 600-700 meters long, but in Voronezh, at the factory airfield, the runway is three times longer. Have the pilots forgotten how to fly?
    1. svoroponov
      svoroponov
      +2
      22 March 2026 14: 28
      Test airfields, airfields at aircraft assembly plants (for test flights) should be longer.
  9. AC130 Gunship
    AC130 Gunship
    +8
    21 March 2026 23: 30
    What the hell is a "new secret"? The -400 model has been around for a long time. About a year ago, they rolled out one of these trucks, which had been in the works for several years. And they danced around it like savages around a spit with a tourist on a bonfire.
    When there's nothing new at all, even a plane designed in the late 80s can be presented as hyper-new. I flew one of those in 95 (-300). 31 years ago.
  10. AC130 Gunship
    AC130 Gunship
    0
    21 March 2026 23: 35
    Quote: vlad127490
    Building new aircraft is very good.
    There is no need to focus on the market; we need to focus on implementing state development programs.
    Business deals with money only for itself.
    The Russian Federation needs to have about 100 Il-96 aircraft.
    The kerosene issue can be resolved through government subsidies. If the Ilyushin consumes 5 tons more kerosene than the Boeing, with equal flight performance and load, the government pays for those 5 tons.
    We need our own aircraft, since construction also means development of production.

    Not quite. More like 5 tons per hour of flight. It's one thing to have two engines, and quite another to have four. Currently, no four-engine passenger aircraft are being produced anywhere in the world (except in Voronezh).
  11. vlad127490
    vlad127490
    -1
    21 March 2026 23: 44
    In Voronezh, the status of a 117-hectare parcel adjacent to the runway of the local VASO aircraft factory has been officially changed. The land has been rezoned to "7.4 Air Transport" to allow for the runway extension project to be finalized.
    The cost is 1,7 billion rubles.
    Opinion: Airlines are waiting for the opportunity to buy Boeing again.
    As of March 2026, the length of the runway in Voronezh, reconstructed at the end of 2020, is 2 meters.
    The runway is intended for testing Il-112V and Il-96 aircraft, which are part of the presidential aircraft fleet.
    Whether the Il is built or not, the runway will remain in Russia and it certainly won’t be stolen.
  12. GN
    GN
    +6
    22 March 2026 02: 17
    Shame. Who else can say the boss doesn't live in another dimension? He works like a galley slave! And the bourgeois slaves fly to and from the galleys only on their new planes, so as not to, God forbid, miss the galley's departure. An organized crime group has seized power and is twisting the people into ropes. They won't rest until they're put on the pitchforks, which should have happened long ago.
    1. svoroponov
      svoroponov
      -2
      22 March 2026 14: 53
      I'm so tired of this whining. Yes, they make planes. True, not enough yet. But the fact that factories have been restored or new ones built, all the competencies have been restored, and practically all the component base has been mastered in-house, is already an achievement. You all don't seem to think about this. After the collapse, how much was left not here, but abroad? And how much was destroyed at our own request from the West? Well, you all know what was happening in the country at that time. The main thing is that the main part of creating our own aviation industry is already behind us. Now we need specialists, who don't appear on their own even after receiving the profession and specialized education. It will take several years, but that will pass. It takes time.
      So instead of moaning, go study and join the aviation ranks. And help build planes.
      As for the Ilu, it's a stretched version, and I think three have been ordered so far. The design bureau is currently redesigning this type with a more powerful engine, and the aircraft will have two. It's still in the working design stage. But considering that many components will be from previously designed ones and have already been tested, everything will be much faster.
  13. savage3000
    savage3000
    +1
    22 March 2026 15: 24
    I'm concerned about something else. Have we lost our aviation expertise?

    So, they made the MS-21. It turns out it has a range of 3800 km. And that's with a lightweight and super-efficient composite wing!

    Boeing and Airbus are made of metal and have a range of 5500-6500 km!
    1. svoroponov
      svoroponov
      0
      22 March 2026 18: 55
      You know, you can say anything you want. But if the fuel tanks of Western long-haul aircraft are much larger, then they'll fly further. We need to consider all the components of the aircraft and be less reliant on claims, but this is something that's either forgotten or deliberately omitted when making comparisons.
      1. savage3000
        savage3000
        0
        23 March 2026 23: 21
        Faith is in the church. I'm talking about the performance characteristics of the MS-21. What do these fuel tanks have to do with it? I'm comparing the MS-21 with its classmates. Do you understand what this is? These are planes carrying the same number of people.

        And Boeing and Airbus carry them much further.
  14. vlad127490
    vlad127490
    0
    22 March 2026 16: 49
    A state called the Russian Federation must have strategic and tactical goals and objectives for the development of national aviation. There is no room for the market here, as this is a state program. NATO countries, their satellites, and China will never allow Russia to enter the international aviation market.
    Tactical objectives, technical solutions, and the market potential of the IL-96 are also discussed here. It's important to understand that producing the IL-96 is a strategic goal for the Russian Federation, and discussing how much kerosene it will consume or how many crew members it will require is inappropriate. We're not discussing whether the IL-96 is good or bad; we have no other option.
    If you're chasing savings at the expense of your aviation industry, then get a horse. It eats hay and doesn't need kerosene. A horse on autopilot will always come home.
    The time will soon come when A and B will be grounded for various reasons. Which aircraft will provide flights to the Far East? There's only one, the Il-96.
    1. svoroponov
      svoroponov
      -1
      22 March 2026 19: 05
      You're completely ignorant of the air travel market. Flight contracts are concluded on a parity basis, assuming, of course, that we have the aircraft to operate them. That is, if a Chinese company makes a couple of flights to us a week, our aircraft must also make a couple of flights. Otherwise, there will be no contract and no flights. And this applies wherever we have an interest and the means.
      And then there's the use of airspace for cross-border flights. So, of course, they can ban something and try to prevent us from getting somewhere, but... Well, Europe and the US have banned it and are flying over the North Pole and the Indian Ocean instead of directly to a number of countries, and some flights have disappeared altogether, along with a number of destinations. A third of European airlines have already gone bankrupt, and the rest are in poor shape and suffering huge losses—those that operate cross-border flights.
      1. vlad127490
        vlad127490
        -1
        22 March 2026 23: 32
        What will Russian citizens use to fly to the Far East: Khabarovsk, Vladivostok, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Magadan, Chukotka, Chita, Yakutsk, and so on? You have Russia's problems abroad; that's your entertainment. You know that NATO countries are closed to Russia, with the exception of Turkey and Cyprus.
  15. Nick. WITH
    Nick. WITH
    0
    22 March 2026 17: 34
    Even the Il-96-300 can land on it only with a tailwind.

    If the runway is too short, then why is it with a tailwind?
    1. twice-born
      twice-born
      -1
      22 March 2026 19: 39
      To fly past it faster and crash into the forest or buildings behind it!
  16. Anton Kuzmin
    Anton Kuzmin
    0
    22 March 2026 19: 21
    To the author, are you absolutely certain that it was a passing car? Or perhaps an oncoming car? /sincerely perplexed/
  17. anclevalico
    anclevalico
    +2
    26 March 2026 08: 35
    They're making another member carrier. There's no talk of mass production.
  18. art573
    art573
    0
    April 6 2026 02: 26
    AWACS aircraft may be in development for deployment along Russia's borders. Previously, the Liana antenna was mounted on a pylon above the fuselage (Tu-126), under Brezhnev. Now, the performance characteristics are completely different; they are classified, and the 400-kilometer radio horizon isn't the limit at 11 meters.
  19. Grei grin
    Grei grin
    0
    April 10 2026 07: 10
    Here the militant debates about some OERLO and GOELLO have begun, it is clear that the people are fighting both in the rear and at the front, but the box is easily opened, it is clear for whom, for the elite thieves, the political thinkers of the century, with children, when it gets heated they will argue without looking the Jews To the mansions beyond the Urals, to continue "saving" the country with their pathetic, so-called political decisions! Lord, take these pathetic people away, they're making the whole world laugh!
  20. anclevalico
    anclevalico
    0
    April 10 2026 08: 29
    They make it to transport noble backsides. Nothing more. Overall, the aviation industry is more dead than alive. No matter how much the noble chatterboxes say, the point of no return has apparently been passed.