China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

That's interesting. When the purchase of the 30 il76 goes through that will be a big boost to the PLAAF. Could you post a link about the purchase of the new aircraft? Thanks

Personally I think the PLAAF needs to improve it's in air re-fueling capablity. I read in the old forum that the re-fueling probes are not compatiable with all their aircraft. Any more info on that?

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050908/41340071.html

This site is normally quite good. It says china got 40 IL-76 and IL-78 for $1 billion. The commonly speculated breakdown is 30 IL-76 and 10 IL-78. Add that to the 10 to 20 IL-76 China already has, the transport and aerial refueling capability has definitely been greatly enhanced.

50 Il-76 and 20-Il-78..

All China needs is those bigger An-124?? An-250?? (like 10-20 of them to provide bigger and badder units) and China will be in VERY good shape

Just 1 problem... Does China have a license to built them or is China working on a new version to replace the old ones?

the ones delivered to china will be new ones, but I'm not sure if China is getting the latest MF variant. Does anyone know what the price on the IL-76MD planes are?

They are Purchasing 38 planes (most Il-76 tranports, some Il-78 refuelers, I don't know the exact mix) for a total purchase price of $1.5 billion.

If we treated the Il-76 and Il-78 has similarly priced, that comes out to $40 million per plane.

The Il-76MF is the newest version and has similar load capablilities to the C-17 Globemaster of America. They are both capable of utilizing shorter runways than the giant cargo planes like the Antonov's or the C-5 Galaxy. As far as I know the C-17 is still superior in regards to the fact that it has truly global range (hence the name Globemaster). This is because it is capable of in-flight refueling. The Il-76MF is still not capable of in-flight refueling.

Btw, the C-17 also costs $340 million per plane and has been sharply criticized by the General Accounting Office as a wasteful Pork program. I think the plane is needed, but that price tag is unjustified.

Four Il-76MF's are already under construction for Russian clients. It is doubtful that these planes were displayed in the recent joint military maneuvers, but there is a good chance it is this model that will be produced in the factory since the order is for brand new planes.

The refueling plane is comparable to America's KC-10 Extender. Forget about the Stratotanker (dated 1965), its limited range does not put it in the same league. The KC-10 costs $100 million apiece.

These, of course, need conventional runways and must have stairways and ramps to get the troops/cargo on and off the planes.

Are you telling me soldiers will not be able to board/leave planes without ramps? Why can't they can either jump or climb up on a rope!?!

Originally Posted by Fairthought

Btw, the C-141 also costs $340 million per plane and has been sharply criticized by the General Accounting Office as a wasteful Pork program. I think the plane is needed, but that price tag is unjustified.

C-141 is no longer in production and is in fact being retired from service. Maybe you are refering to the C-17 GlobemasterIII? But $340 mil. still sounds steep to me.

Thank you Walter,

I am mistaken. The price tag is for the C-17. The C-141 has not been in production in over ten years and the last one is set to retire in 2006. Yes, I meant to say the C-17 globemaster. Terribly sorry about the mix up. The C-141 is not capable of the inflight refueling, the C-17 is.

I did not realize the price tag ($340 mil.) was so high on the C-17--that sure is a lot of pork!
At that price i would almost prefer the US also buying the Il-76MF for $40 million a copy.

Speaking economically, it would be better to just buy Il-76 cargo planes. But military industry is a strategic asset and I support any country's decision to subsidize their military corporations -capitalism and free trade be damned.

The price tag comes from GAO, and referred to the initial order of C-17's. Subsequent orders has seen the price of the C-17 come down to $202.3 ('98 dollars). That's equal to $234.4 million in today's dollars.

Originally Posted by FriedRiceNSpice

Are you telling me soldiers will not be able to board/leave planes without ramps? Why can't they can either jump or climb up on a rope!?!

Well, sure, that'd be possible, to climb up a rope for example, but how practical is that? How long would it need to embark/disembark a full load of soldiers that way? Bigger problem there is that a boeing 737, one of the type of planes in question, is a commercial airliner with landing gear not suited for unconvential runways. I see commercial airliners being used once an airfield has been secured enough for them to come in, land, take an hour or whatever to disembark and then lift off.

the ukriainian an-124 is a viable solution, but china may need to expand her airfeilds a bit to support it. just buy a few and test it, then make your own transport.

Moscow Times
September 9, 2005
Pg. 5

China To Buy Russian Jets For $1.5Bln

By Associated Press

Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Thursday that Russia would deliver long-range transport jets and tanker refueling planes to China, Russian news agencies reported.

Ivanov announced the deal after meeting in the Black Sea resort of Sochi with his Chinese counterpart, Cao Gangchuan, Interfax reported, but no details were given.

Vedomosti reported that the deal, involving 38 Il-76 transport planes and Il-78 tankers, was worth $1.5 billion.

Earlier, Cao met with President Vladimir Putin and other top members of the Russian government.

Observers say the drills also gave Russia the chance to show off military equipment, since China has become the biggest foreign buyer of Russian arms and equipment in recent years.

Since the Soviet collapse, Moscow has built strong ties with Beijing, with both countries having a common goal to counter what they see as U.S. threats to their strategic and economic interests.

so the deal is through? now china will have some true projection abilities.