I don’t know why the Tu-154 keeps popping up when its the Il-86 and 96 in question (although the 62 could be possible).

I imagine the Tupolev’s three engine lay out would not take well to the addition of an awacs covering its intake area.

its worth noting the il-86 airframe has been used for other military applications so I don’t buy the (il-86 is not suited for military) use

Good comments

The T-tail issue is something interesting. is it still a problem in Russian based AWACS as the Il-76 is a T-Tail design?

And glad some one else also thinks the Il-96 would have served as a better basis for AWACS than the Il-76.
I am also surprised the Il-76 had more range than the 86, although I still stand that the 86 would have been a better platform.
Its just as big, same era, mass produced.

With lighter radars and more forms now available, I suspect the MC-21 could also serve as another platform for a smaller AWACS.
Similar to the balance beam awacs 737. Could be useful for export, especially countries like Kazakhstan.

Not sure if it is wise for Norway to give up its submarine fleet given its key position in the northern Atlantic. Should cut funds elsewhere to support the subs (like F-35 as mentioned).
South Korean stuff are good enough and affordable

speaking of reliability..ive found this

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/military-choppers-failed-on-reliability-says-defence/news-story/aa9d970bc936885f615e097c5eacbd1b

The unreliability and under-*performance of two of Australia’s military helicopter fleets has caused a lack of jobs for pilots and a reduction in training operations at Army Aviation.

These are the latest problems to be associated with the Tiger attack and reconnaissance helicopter and the troop transport MRH-90 Taipan, according to notes in the Defence Department’s annual *report.

Both helicopter fleets, which together cost more than $5 billion, have been notoriously unreliable, with the Taipan running five years behind to reach final operational capability due next year and the Tiger reaching FOC last year — seven years late and then only with a number of caveats.

The annual report says there has been reduced overall training due to the ability to absorb pilots into units as a flow-on from the *choppers’ underperformance.

“High maintenance liability continues to impact rate-of-effort achievement,” it says. “There was reduced training at the Army Aviation Training Centre due to the ability to absorb pilots into the operational unit.”

The report singles out the MRH-90, saying “reliability, availability and maintainability deficiencies continued to impact the fleet”.

“Availability levels have not yet been achieved for transition of the MRH-90 into the Special Forces support role,’’ it said. “Flying was suspended twice during 2016-17 due to technical information management issues, with corresponding rate-of-effort achievement.”

Among the roles the Taipans were supposed to undertake was as a replacement for the ageing Black Hawk helicopters flying special forces.

The report said the Tigers’ rate of effort had been estimated to fly 4800 hours over the year but attained 3971 while the Taipans were due 7000 but only managed 5348.

It revealed the MH-60R Seahawk had been estimated to fly 4800 hours but only managed 4037 because of a lack of crew.

it only confirms my theory that whenever the Germans and French collaborate on something, the end product isn’t that great.
better to go full French or full German.

wow, problems both at sea and on land.

this begs the question, didn’t those forces who procured them carefully examine it?

examine the structural quality of the floor
the accessibility of its doors
its compatibility with ships?

it seems a lot of these things could have been avoided