Well, they seem to think the Il-476 will have something like an (IIRC) 17-20% increase in fuel efficiency over the Il-76MD. And if the modernization is as I’ve read, then there should be big gains in reliability and ease of maintenance compared to the 1970s technology of the Il-76MD.

Yes, and that the Il-476 is happening anyway is arguably part of the problem: two wrongs don’t make a right. Go for a sizeable fleet of Il-98s, An-70s and thoroughly modernised An-124s (An-70 avionics, the latest D-18T variants) instead. This should offer a much superior price/performance ratio compared to primarily Il-476/478s and only a handful of An-70s and minimally upgraded An-124s.

I don’t see how the An-70 is going to offer much superior price/performance ratio compared to the Il-476. It’s an entirely new aircraft (which the VTA has no experience with) that has similar performance to your standard Il-76MD (smaller dimensions, though, which is a problem for some loads). I’m certain that the Il-476, as a new-build, but modernized Il-76MD, would be cheaper to build and operate than the An-70, which has been a big useless white elephant in the military transport game for ages. I really don’t understand what niche it was meant to fill (because it certainly wasn’t meant to replace the Il-76MD).

The Il-476 as it is now emerging is a mediocre, wholly dispensable airlifter which only serves to starve more important projects of funding. In essence, it is a bad way to spend Russian MoD money, and going down the wrong road even further (by building tanker and AEW versions) is not going to make things better IMHO.

I don’t see what’s wrong with it. The urge to build ever newer impressive military airlifters baffles me when its perfectly fine to simply modernise and produce new versions of existing designs, in this regard, the Il-476 sounds a lot like the C-130J Hercules.

Any news on the Borodino (ex-Novik) frigate who’s construction was suspended a while ago?

Hm? That was “completed” as a training ship.

I really do not see any merit raising the 80’s design Kirov back from grave , other then the belief about its power projection and showing off St Andrew Flag in the worlds ocean.

They are better off spending that money building more Pr 20350 Frigate , Corvette and New Gen Destroyers , these new ship are operationally more useful for RuN and more capable of taking on 21st Century task.

The cost/benefit math probably doesn’t work out. For all we know, the amount of money to repair/modernize a Pr.1144, you’d probably be lucky to get one new, modern frigate – a fraction of the capability that the Kirov-class offers as a long term lynchpin of the fleet (i.e. acting as flagship, as well as key air defence and surface warfare component).

I don’t see the need of bringing all three inactive Pr.1144s back – two more – definitely the Admiral Nakhimov plus whichever is in better shape out of the Kirov and Admiral Lazarev, would be fine (i.e. Peter the Great = Northern Fleet, Admiral Nakhimov = Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Lazarev/Kirov = Pacific Fleet).

I heard future AWACS ( A-100 ) will be based on new platform IL-96-400 is this true ?

I wouldn’t know, this is the first I’ve heard of either the A-100 or its proposed platform 🙂

The Su-27SM and the next batch of Su-34 have the AL-31FM1. It’s logical for the upgraded Su-33 to get them as well.

I’m quite positive that the Su-34 has had AL-31FM1 from the beginning of series production. The Su-27SM has had it from the start, and it entered service way before series Su-34s did.

Thanks for the pictures vympel

No problem 🙂

In my opinion its a very weak modernisation but hope to see it in a flying bird!

Well the upgrade is under way. Some Tu-22M3s have been upgraded with the SVP-24-22 system since at least last year:-

Bombers Successfully Destroy Ground Targets During Zapad-2009 Exercises

Strike bombers equipped with a special computer subsystem (the SVP-24) successfully destroyed ground targets in the Zapad-2009 Russo-Byelorussian operational and strategic exercises, Nezavisimaya Gazeta writes.

As they reported at the Russian Federation defense ministry press service, a mixed strike group of combat airplanes was active in the aerial attack – Tu-22M3 strategic bombers and Su-24M tactical bombers, equipped with the SVP-24, and also Su-27SM fighters who protected the strike groups from enemy attack.

Source: 28.09.09, Avia.RU

There was further mention of SVP-24-22 specifically earlier this year in use in exercises too. They’ll probably avoid allowing pictures, just like they do with Su-24M2, Su-25SM, MiG-31BM and Su-27SM (though we’ve seen its cockpit several times now).

As for the modernisation itself, I think its all that’s really justified. The Tu-22M3 won’t be around for much longer, and the upgrade greatly increases the Tu-22M3’s attack and navigation precision (specifically in terms of satellite guided PGMs, which SVP-24 enables the use of). And the cockpit is of course upgraded with a digital moving map display, just like the Su-24M2.

If a more comprehensive upgrade completely changed the entire avionics and cockpit fitout, it would be majorly expensive and wouldn’t be terribly useful given the Tu-22M3s will only be around until 2020 at the latest (IIRC). And there’s the question of weight – the Su-24M2 modernisation – just replacing obsolete systems with the SVP-24, allowed the aircraft to shed hundreds of kilograms of weight in ancient, bulky avionics.

Now, imagine how much weight the Tu-22M3 would lose with an even more comprehensive upgrade (especially if you change the radar) – it may well unbalance the entire airframe, and require the installation of ballast!

On the Tu-22M3 modernization something seems to be in progress. The question is what?

I would say modernisation with the SVP-24-22 nav/attack system:-

Link

In other words, an Su-24M2 style minimalist upgrade (using the SVP-24 originally developed for the Su-24M2, naturally, but adapted for use on the Tu-22M) – minimal changes to the cockpit, though there are some.

They used some modernized Tu-22M3s with this new system a few months ago IIRC, in exercises/ tests.