The Chinese L-15 program is basically dead in the water now thanks to Ukraine. Motor-Sich is effectively bankrupt with the end of Russian sales and the pilfering of their staff by UEC. Russians have funded a special program to get Ukrainian aviation workers to pack up and move to Russia. Getting AI-222 engines out of Ukraine or anything much more technically complex than a brick of steel is now basically impossible for EVERYONE — not just Russa. With the end of subsidized Russian energy its also no longer going to be cost competitive with Russian offerings even if production resumes. Biggest factor keeping old Ukrainian factories with lines that havent been modernized since the 80’s cost competitive was subsidized energy that even Russian producers themselves never got. That’s all over. Unless the Chinese find a domestic replacement for the AI-222 the L-15 wont be outselling the Yak-130.

Sorry but can you elaborate on who pilfered their staff? How successful has the program been?

RS-12M Topol (NATO reporting name SS-25 Sickle.

Russia Test-Fires ICBM to Target in Kazakhstan

Russia Plans 2 More Ballistic Missile Tests in March

The infographic purports to show a Topol-M but its clearly a Topol (7 wheels, not 8)

Whose MiG-29 is that anyway?

Personally I wish Saturn would stop calling the damn thing “117” on its website and give it a proper AL- designation already.

Why do the Su-34s in the green/black color have a grill on their tail sting and the ones in the blue don’t?

Why? Il-476 supporters keep bringing up supposed civilian interest to justify their utopian fantasies about its sales potential. So why would it not be relevant to point out that the An-70 is undeniably more suitable for certain military charters that make up a significant part of the business of operators like Volga-Dnepr?

Well I’m only concerned about military requirements at the moment. I’d say appealing to the civilian market is a seperate issue.

Similarly you ask people to justify their assumption that the VVS requires an aircraft with a bigger cross section (the sheer existence of the An-70 pretty much covers that, as mentioned).

Well no, it doesn’t. If the existence of the An-70 covers that the VVS requires an aircraft with a bigger cross section, you can’t very well turn around and say that the existence of the Il-476 is unjustified – since its existence justifies itself, does it not? Or is what is good for promoting the An-70’s cause not good for the Il-476?

The point is its quite possible – and indeed probable – that the Il-476 was acquired because it met a certain requirement that the VVS had. One which the An-70 could not fill all by itself.

Yet on the other hand nobody appears to be able to give a logical argument why Russia’s needs in terms of moving bulky loads would be fundamentally different to every other military’s. Why exactly is this comparison supposed to be invalid – what is the reason that Russia does NOT need an aircraft with a wider and higher cargo compartment?

Its not incumbent on anyone to prove that Russia does not need requirements same to that of every other military, its incumbent on the person acting like other militaries are relevant to prove that it does. In the absence of pointing to the actual written VVS requirements and proving that the An-70 fits the bill better than the Il-476, this is just pointless partisan tail chasing.

Why do Il-76 fanboys think that everyone – absolutely everyone, including the Soviet armed forces in the 1980s – except post-2000 Russia has got their analyses of cargo aircraft requirements wrong since the 1960s? Anyone remember the C-141? No consideration was given to building more, or re-lifing airframes & re-engining. Why was that?

The C-141C was a service life extension of previous models. They upgraded 63 to that standard, out of a fleet of less than 300.

In any event, I don’t think its particularly valid to assume that there is One True Set of Requirements For Cargo Aircraft and any aircraft which deviates is somehow wanting. Someone show me the actual requirements presented for a given cargo aircraft, explain to me how they’re identical to those for another cargo aircraft, then argue that “oh, Aircraft B is clearly an inferior aircraft to Aircraft C” etc.