GREAT EMPHASIS has always been placed The Russian Air Force's latest standard Il-22 Coot-B, RA-75909,

75909, was a surprise 'exhibit' at the recent air

on the Command and Control of Russia's show at Akhtubinsk, celebrating 80 years of flying at this, Russia's most important test base. Clearly visible
armed forces, particularly in times of are the three new large hockey stick antennas mounted above and below the fuselage and an array of two,
conflict involving the potential threat of the use
possibly three tubular antennas on the fuselage centreline, aft of the nosewheel bay. SERGEI SERGEYEV
of nuclear weapons. As in the West, the idea of
using an aircraft as a mobile Command Post Electronic Countermeasures (ECM). Such ECM that traditionally the Soviet Union lagged
first arose in the former USSR in the second could be in the form of jamming the enemy's behind the West in the e l e c t r o n i c s f i e l d .
half of the 1950s when large capacity, long- lines of c o m m u n i c a t i o n , as well as radio Consequently, the realisation of various Airborne
range passenger and transport aircraft began to intercept of c o m m u n i c a t i o n s between an Command Post (ACP) projects in the former
appear on the scene. airborne command post and ground authorities. USSR only became possible in the mid-1960s,
Clearly, line of sight and HF radio Against this background, the installed when Russian electronics technology had
communications would be the sole means of c o m m u n i c a t i o n s e q u i p m e n t had to be matured sufficiently, and development of a
contact between command authorities on board sufficiently light, have low power consumption suitable platform was only able to commence at
an aircraft and their subordinate units on the and r e q u i r e minimum levels of s e r v i c i n g the end of that decade.
ground. It was essential, therefore, not only to personnel. Taking all these requirements and
maintain reliable two-way communications circumstances into consideration, Soviet Cub, Cat or Coot?
regardless of the mutual positions of aircraft designers of an Airborne Command Post (ACP) The main task facing the designers of the first-
and receivers on the ground, but also to take communications suite were faced with a very generation Soviet Airborne Command Post was
into consideration the possibility, or indeed, the complex task. the selection of a suitable airframe, which had
i n e v i t a b i l i t y of extensive enemy use of The main difficulty was caused by the fact to possess not only long flight endurance and
high reliability, but also sufficient space to
house the n e c e s s a r y command crew and
servicing personnel for the system.
Additionally, it had to have a high level of
compatibility with equipment to be found at its
deployed operating bases and be capable of
extensive autonomous operations away from its
home airfield. It also had to have low operating
costs.
The huge territorial expanse of the former
USSR also determined that the selected aircraft
The first service version of the Il-22 was known as the Bizon by the Air Force and was distinguish-
for the ACP task had to possess a range of at
able by the almost 65ft (20m) long tubular fairing of the prototype along the fuselage centreline. least 2,160-2,700nm (4,000-5,000km), to
The length of this fairing is consistent with it housing a real aperture sideways looking radar anten- provide a realistic on-task capability. Analysis
na. If allied to a short wavelength transmission frequency, this length of antenna would offer very of the flight performance of a range of aircraft in
fine resolution in azimuth at short range. However, there has been no confirmation that this was service in the USSR at the time led to the
ever the function of the device. YEFIM GORDON selection and modification, as was the case in

62 December 2000

the USA, of an existing civil airliner design.
This led to economies in financial resources
allocated to the programme, c o n s i d e r a b l e
saving in development time and simplified
operation of the ACP at c i v i l and military
airfields where the basic aircraft type was
already being used.
The criterion of long flight endurance for the
ACP led inevitably to the selection of only two
main contenders for the role of the Soviet
Union's first Airborne Command Post. These
two aircraft were the llyushin Il-18 Coot and
A n t o n o v An-10 Cat, both e q u i p p e d w i t h
pressurised cabins. (The widely used and
potentially more suitable An-12 Cub did not
have a sufficiently large pressure cabin.) The
An-10 possessed certain advantages as a
c o n s e q u e n c e of the fact that many of its
components had commonality with those of the
An-12, but the Il-18 had the greatest range
performance and, as it transpired later, had
none of the design defects which effectively put
an end to the service career of the An-10.
Apart from this, two major modifications of the
Il-18 had already entered military service, as
the Il-38 May Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
variant and the Il-20 Coot-A Signals Intelligence
(SIGINT) aircraft. This greatly improved the
chances for an ACP based on this design, to be
based at airfields in the north and far east of
the USSR, where joint deployment of the three
types would have mutual operational benefits.
It is interesting that the Soviet Government
and the Ministry of Aircraft Production did not
choose the llyushin 0KB itself to be the design
authority for conversion of the Il-18 into an
Airborne Command Post. Instead they chose
the Experimental Machine Building Plant
(EhMZ), headed by famous strategic bomber
designer, Vladimir Myasishchev. The official
explanation for this was that llyushin was
already heavily committed to strategically
important tasks such as the development of the
Il-76 Candid freighter and upgrade work on the
Il-38 May ASW aircraft.
The choice is made
The decision to proceed with the development
of an airborne command post based on the II-
18 airframe was taken following the issue of
joint Directive No.603-215 of the Communist
Party Central Committee and the Council of
Ministers, on August 7, 1968. This was further
endorsed by Ministry of Aircraft Production
Order No.312 issued on September 6 of the
same year. The selected design was later to
receive the designation Il-22 Coot-B, although
The prototype of the Il-22 differed noticeably from the standard Il-18 airliner by the addition of the
very long tubular under-fuselage fairing and a profusion of aerials on the top of the cockpit and
cabin area. The cigar-shaped fairing at the fin tip is also characteristic of the type. PIOTR BUTOWSKI
all ll-22s retained the Il-18 designation painted
on the forward fuselage in order to 'blend in'
with standard Aeroflot Coofs.
From the outset, it was decided that several
variants of the ACP would be built, having the
same basic equipment, but furnished with
additional specialised installations depending
upon the actual task that the aircraft was to
perform. These various ACP versions were
intended for operation by specific arms of
service within the former Soviet Union's armed
forces structure.
As the basic airframe for the strategic ACP, the
II-18D (Dalnii/Long Range) was chosen on the
basis of its long endurance and range. In
service, the aircraft was to achieve a range
performance of around 3,850 miles (6,200km)
and an endurance of ten hours, making round-
the-clock operations quite feasible with three
aircraft in any given theatre.
D u r i n g d e v e l o p m e n t of the ACP by the
Myasishchev design team, the aircraft received
the code name II-18D-36 (where 36 referred to
the Myasishchev design project or product
number). The external appearance of the
aircraft was slightly changed from the standard
airliner, mainly as a result of the addition of a
large number of transmitting and receiving
antennas, covering a broad spectrum of the
radio bands. Below the fuselage, on the
centreline, other antennas were mounted in a
long hemispherical di-electric housing and a
long bullet fairing was mounted on top of the
fin. Comfortable workstations for the mission
commander, his subordinates and mission
equipment specialists were installed in place of
the standard passenger seats.
The workstations were designed to provide a
comfortable working environment both during
long operational flights and on the ground,
when required to operate in this mode. Apart
from a plethora of radio communications
equipment and a satellite navigation system,
the aircraft was also equipped with a multi-
channel encryption and decryption system, as
well as an on-board computer for the analysis
and storage of information. The precise internal
layout of the aircraft has never been revealed,
but it is known that there is a 'war-room' on
board to facilitate execution of battle plans.
The majority of the special role equipment was
i n s t a l l e d in the u n d e r - f l o o r baggage
compartments. This early Soviet Airborne
Command Post was also equipped with an
Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) suite and
radar warning receiver (RWR) equipment.
To facilitate use of the Il-22 from unprepared
grass strips and to avert possible damage to the
www.airforcesmonthly.com 63
 under-fuselage antennas from debris thrown up
by the nose wheels, they were fitted with
special mud flaps covering the rear part of the
wheel assembly. However, there is no recorded
use of the aircraft from unprepared surfaces
during service operations.
The Il-22 also has a TA-6 auxiliary power unit
to supply electrical power to the many items of
equipment which can be used when the aircraft
is on the ground. This APU is similar to that
used on the Il-62, Il-76 and Tu-154 and
replaced the original TG-16 unit, which was
unsuitable for the increased electrical load
requirement of the Il-22. The Coot-B also had
a special egress system, with a slipstream
deflector in front of the port rear entry door,
which was designed to be used by the rear
crew when abandoning the aircraft in an
emergency. It was later acknowledged that
successful egress of the entire rear crew
through the one exit was virtually impossible
and the bulky hydraulic rams and fairings for
the deflector were replaced by a standard door.
Bizon and Zebras
The first two converted II-18D-36 test-bed
airframes were completed in 1970-1971. At
the same time, State Acceptance Trials of the
communications elements of the Airborne
Command Post system began. The leading test
pilot for the programme was Kir Vladimirovich
Chernobrovkin, who was later killed, (in 1978),
during a tragic unplanned take-off at Kumertau
in the first prototype M-17 Mystic high-altitude
research aircraft.
After completion of the State Trials in 1974,
the II-18D-36 was put into production with the
designation Il-22 (regardless of the fact that the
a i r c r a f t was built by a t o t a l l y different
manufacturer from the original) and accepted
for operational use with the Soviet Armed
Forces. In military service the aircraft received
another code name - Bizon (Bison) - not to be
confused with the Myasishchev M4 and 3M
bomber designs, which were given the
completely unrelated NATO code name Bison.
Series produced ll-22s were manufactured at
the same factory as the standard civil ll-18s, at
Moscow's 'Znamya Truda' plant, today one of
the RSK-MiG factories. After a while, the Il-22
( A r t i c l e 36 or Bizon) gave way to series
production of the II-22M (Article 40 or Zebra),
which was a modification of the original design
with a different equipment installation. At least
one modified version of the aircraft was known
as the II-22M-11 Zebra and also reported as II-
18M-11 Zebra. There are indications that this
variant was developed in 1977 under Project
11U, dealing with airborne command posts
The Il-76 can scarcely be described as an elegant design, but the addition of the numerous bulges
and aerials which have turned it into the Il-80 have clearly robbed it of what grace it did have!
There is little doubt, however, that this reliable and capacious transport is an ideal basis for the
specialised electronic role it was designed to perform. YEFIM GORDON
64 December 2000
Previously operated in support of the Commander of the Western Group of Forces and based at
Sperenberg in the former East Germany, II-22M Zebra RA-75913 was photographed at Chkalovskaya AB
in the summer of 1999. It is possible to appreciate from this view the extensive range of communica-
tions antennas required by an airborne command post, for its LVHF, V/UHF and HF radios. YEFIM GORDON
with entirely new mission avionics, where the
suffix U possibly relates to its overall command
and control function (Upravleniye in Russian).
The design and external appearance of the II-
22M Zebra exhibited a number of small
changes over the preceding model; the lower
centre fuselage antenna housing was reduced in
length and hockey stick antennas were now not
only installed on the upper fuselage, but also on
the rear underside of the fuselage.
An essential military tool
Military demands and appreciation of the
command and control capabilities of the first
Russian Airborne Command Post turned out to
be greater than expected, to the extent that the
initial low volume production by the 'Znamya
Truda' plant had to be supplemented by a
number of airframes converted from civilian II-
18s. At the beginning of the 1980s, the
Moscow plant was heavily engaged in the
manufacture of MiG-23 Floggers and was
preparing for the introduction of the MiG-29
Fulcrum. Consequently, aircraft earmarked for
conversion into ACPs underwent airframe
modification at the 'Znamya Truda' factory and
were then transferred to Zhukovsky, where the
Myasishchev design team was based. The
entire communications installation was then
completed by EhMZ personnel at Zhukovsky.
Manufacture of ll-22s of all versions continued
until the mid-1980s and in total more than 30
aircraft were built from new or converted from
civil airframes. All carried civil registrations in
the series CCCP-75895 to CCCP-75929,
although there were some inexplicable gaps in
the sequence. They were painted in the
standard 1970s-era Aeroflot colours when they
entered service and c a r r i e d the normal
designation Il-18 on the nose, as mentioned
earlier. Originally, II-22/22M Coot-Bs were
assigned to the General Staff of the Soviet
Armed Forces and the Commanders-in-Chief of
the Strategic Rocket Forces, the Ground Forces,
the Homeland Air Defence organisation (PVO),
the Soviet Air Force and the Navy. Numbers
allocated to each branch of service varied,
possibly as a function of status in the military
hierarchy, but the precise distribution is not
known.
The main operating base of the strategically
assigned ll-22s was, and still is, Moscow-
C h k a l o v s k a y a and the a i r c r a f t are the
responsibility of the 8th Special Purpose Air
Division (8-aya Aviatsionnaya Diviziya Osobovo
Naznacheniya). At the more 'tactical' end of
strategic operations, single ll-22s were assigned
to the Commanders of Military Districts in the
former Soviet Union, as well as the
Commanders of the Northern Group of Forces
at Legnica in Poland and the Western Group of
Forces at Sperenberg in the former East
Germany.
Other ll-22s are known to have operated from
Baku, Irkutsk and Khabarovsk. Occasionally an
Il-22 would also fly in to Moscow-Kubinka and
remain there for some time without flying. Often
these aircraft were only used as VIP transport, to
fly senior officers into Afghanistan or Chechnya,
for example, rather than for command and
control and this practice continues today. Apart
from this, after the II-18SIP (Samolyotnyy
Izmerityel'nyy Punkt/Airborne Telemetry System)
space-tracking aircraft were withdrawn from
service, the task was handed over to the Il-22/Il-
22M ACPs.
The most recent exercise in which the Il-22
took part was a Long-Range Air Force event
held on September 17, 1999. On that day, a
pair of Tu-95MS-6 Bear-Hs of the 326th Heavy
Bomber Division, operating out of Anadyr
(Chukotka) took off on a mission taking them to
the neutral waters of the Pacific Ocean. A
second pair of Bear-Hs took off from Tiksi and
flew over the North Pole towards the Canadian
coast. Both groups of aircraft were controlled
and co-ordinated from an Il-22 Coot-B orbiting
in the region of Kamchatka. It is believed that
the communications suite of the Il-22 is
operated by a team of six specialist personnel,
working on behalf of the embarked commander.
Enter the big jets
Midway through the 1980s, the former Soviet
Union initiated work on the design and
construction of a new generation of Airborne
Command Posts. Two types of aircraft were
once again selected as the platform for the
Airborne Command Post System - the Il-76
Candid freighter and the wide f u s e l a g e
passenger liner- Il-86 Camber.
Unlike the selection process for the first
generation ABNCP, both contenders for the
follow-on type were selected to be built. The
first, based on the Il-76, was designated Il-80
and two airframes were completed, initially
registered CCCP-76450 and -76451. The
second a i r c r a f t , based on the Il-86, was
designated Il-82 and the four airframes built
received the registrations CCCP-86146, -
86147, -86148 and -86149 respectively.
Both types made their first appearance in the
second half of the 1980s. (It should be noted
that the designations Il-80 and Il-82 have in
the past been applied to the wrong airframes by
a succession of authors - the designations used
in this article are correct and are confirmed by
the llyushin Design Bureau.) Of interest is the
fact that only the Il-82 received a new standard
NATO c o d e - n a m e , d e v i s e d by the A i r
Standardisation Co-ordination Committee.
A s s i g n e d the name Maxdome, this w a s
probably also the last use of this naming
system for Russian aircraft, effectively marking
the end of the 'Soviet watching' era.
As a consequence of the lack of appropriate
modern technology at the time, the
development teams working on these aircraft
have had to overcome huge difficulties in
creating new communications and electronic
equipment for the second generation ACP.
Because of this, the entire process of testing the
new ACP complex has been considerably
protracted. For example, the first completed
experimental Il-82, sometimes also known as
the II-86VPU (Vozdushny Punkt
Upravlyeniya/Airborne Command Post), had to
commence flight tests without its special role
equipment being installed. The flight tests were
conducted out of Zhukovsky and Chkalovskaya
under the supervision of, and with the active
participation of military test pilot, Colonel
Anatoly Andronov, Head of Transport Aircraft
Flight Testing at the Air Force S c i e n t i f i c
Research Institute.
According to some specialists, the Il-82 was
conceived as the equivalent of the United
States Government Boeing E-4B, to become the
former Soviet Union's own National Emergency
C om m and Post. The Il-80 would then
complement the long-range communications
performance of the Maxdome by acting as an
airborne radio relay aircraft, a role which has
always been regarded as pivotal in Russian
military air operations.
Worldwide communications
As already mentioned previously, two II-76MD
airframes were converted into Il-80 ACPs, on
the special authority of the Ministry of Defence
of the former USSR. Sometimes these aircraft
are also known as II-76SK (Spetsial'ny
Komandnyy/Special Command aircraft) and are
known by the airframe manufacturer, TAPO, as
'Radio-relay aircraft 65S324'. Part of the
equipment of the Il-80 has commonality with
that of the Il-82 (II-86VPU) whereas other
elements s h a r e c o m m o n a l i t y with the
Ilyushin/Beriev A-50 Mainstay-B AWACS.
Externally, the Il-80 is very distinctive - the
entire upper forward fuselage from the cockpit
to the wing carry-through fairing - is covered by
a huge upturned boat-shaped housing for the
This interesting study of one of the four Il-82 Maxdomes in landing configuration provides some
additional detail of the aircraft's external layout. The faired housing for the retracted stabilising
cone of the VLF communications system can be seen on the rear fuselage just ahead of the
tailplane. The two podded containers between the engines and the fuselage house auxiliary power
generation equipment for the extensive communications suite on this aircraft. VIKTOR DRUSHLYAKOV
SATCOM antenna, as on the Il-82. The glazing command and control coverage for Russian
of the navigator's station is faired over with military operations.
metal panels and the undercarriage fairings are In contrast, the newer ACPs scarcely ever take
also taken from the A-50, the front sections are to the air. It is possible, therefore, that
noticeably deeper and wider and each fairing derivative versions of the Il-22 will continue in
has two round air intakes of different sizes. service for many more years yet. During their
These elongated fairings house additional power operational careers the 'Bizon' and 'Zebra' have
generating equipment, allegedly based on been progressively upgraded and the original
converted Ivchenko AI-24 turbine engines. communications and electronic suites have
They also house electronic equipment, which been replaced by more modern systems. The
has resulted in the aircraft's standard APU latest variant of the Il-22, which underwent a
being moved to the left rear side of the fairing modification programme at Zhukovsky, carried
with the air intake mounted above, as on the A- out by Myasishchev personnel and handed over
50. to the military in the spring of 1998, does not
On the sides of the rear loading ramp of the II- have the long under-fuselage centreline antenna
80 there are two large blade aerials. Under the housing. It does, however, have two new large
outer wing panels of the aircraft there are two hockey stick antennas on the upper fuselage
short pylons on which are mounted two cigar- and a s i m i l a r antenna on the starboard
shaped containers housing forward protruding underside of the fuselage, just ahead of the
HF rod antennas. On the central door section wing leading edge. This aircraft carries the civil
of the rear loading ramp there is a drum registration RA-75909, but as yet it has not
housing for a Very Low Frequency (VLF) wire received a separate identifying name like
antenna, which is reeled out with a stabilising the earlier examples.
cone attached to the end. The 3 mile (5km)
long antenna permits communication with
submersed submarines over thousands of miles.
The drum is a c t u a l l y situated within the
fuselage and only the fairing and partially
retracted cone is visible from outside. An
antenna with a similar function is used on the
Il-82 (II-86VPU), but is mounted on the left-
hand side of the rear fuselage. Both types of
second generation Airborne Command Posts are
painted in standard Aeroflot colours and carry
the designations II-76MD and Il-86
respectively, in the normal position on the nose
of the aircraft.
Life extension for Il-22?
It was not possible to carry out the full range of
acceptance tests with the Il-80 and Il-82 ACPs
because of the introduction of 'perestroika'
measures and the subsequent collapse of the
Soviet Union. For a long time the aircraft were
based at Zhukovsky, and parked within the
Flight Test Institute area of the airfield, where
they were first seen publicly by the thousands
of spectators who visited the Moscow Air Show
in 1992 and 1993. Later, they were moved to
A close-up view of the rear fuselage of the II-
Chkalovskaya airfield just outside Moscow,
80 showing the position of the retracted stabil-
where they are still based today. This airfield is
the central base for all Russian Airborne ising cone of the VLF antenna between the two
Command Posts. massive blade aerials. Note also the addition-
As it turns out, the operating costs of the Il-80 al cooling vents in the vicinity of these aerials,
and Il-82 are substantially higher than for the indicative of localised heat generation by
II-22/II-22M, so the latter continue to provide equipment in this area. PIOTR BUTOWSKI
www.airforcesmonthly.com 65