As the IL-14
had reached the end of its service life a follow up type had to be found. The
high command of the LSK/LV had been investigating a follow up type for the IL-14
for a considerable period of time. Even the purchase of five IL-76’s
was considered. However after
considerable discussion it was found that the acquisition and maintenance costs
were significant and this caused the project to fail.
In 1978/79
the AN-72 was considered as a replacement option.
During a personal conversation with our second in command of the commander for
aeronautical education the retraining on the AN-72 was discussed. The equipment
of TS-24 and the inability of the Antonov production factory to deliver the
aircraft within the intended time frame caused this project to also fail.
However
time was rapidly passing due to the increasing technical failures of the
IL-14’s. As time passed the AN-26 became more into the spotlight as the
replacement aircraft of choice. It was allegedly stated that this would only be
a transition type. She however filled the short-term requirements for the Air
Force.
These
mentioned reasons and the lower maintenance costs associated with the
‘Anna’, were decisive factors for the purchase.
The retrained flight technical staff made themselves familiar with the
German (East) variant of the AN-26 manufactured especially for the German
Democratic Republic after its arrival in Dresden. The cockpit equipment differed
fundamentally from that used during the retraining at the Aeroflot Training
School due to the unavailability of the German variant at that time.
TS-24 as an air transport group of LTG-65 resumed transport flights shortly after reunification and had to fit into the special ‘habits’ of the German Airforce and to this German unit and into the accomodation provided. The ‘Anna’ became mainly an aircraft to transport persons both as the ‘official shuttle’ between Cologne, Berlin and Wriezen and also in the interests of the Bundestag. This amplified use as a ‘people’ transport also obliged complaints about the noise disturbences in the cargo hold, these complaints caused a rapid decision about the future use of the AN-26. A factor in this decision was the opinions of a prominent transport pilot and air transport expert, their position was, that although the C160 Transall was somewhat aged it was preferrable to the AN-26 and that the incorporation of the AN-26 was unheard of. However the reality was that one didn’t want to make himself depentent on a Russian aircraft ( Remarks: The Antonov works/factory is located Northwest of Kiev in what is now the Ukraine, formally part of the Soviet Union). In the course of the next few years there were many voices who were again and again sorry for the seperation from the ‘Anna’. Soon, perhaps there will be an ‘Anna’ in the airforce again (*). This must now be a real consideration as a follow-up/replacement for the old and infirm Transall. The decision about the follow-up type shall be made in June 2000.
"The Antonov is the economically more favorable alternative both in the obtaining costs and in the journey through life costs at simultaneous operative technical superiority"
Hans-Peter von Kirchbach
(*) The decision has been made against every economy. It was a political issue against the Antonov.
Lately
the Russian IL-76 and the An-124 have already
been considered as replacement transports.
I thank Mr. L.Lusser for the provisioning of the photos on this side.