And surprise surprise you twist the answer around to suit your world view! Embraer does an industry standard process in outsourcing and it is the road to disaster! Sukhoi do exactly the same thing and it is a level headed decision by a private venture in your world!

If you read little bit about Superjet and Embaraer it is not the same thing. Superjet is manufactured in a military factory with same labor. and have used experianced from Russian working at Boeing. It is more advanced compared to what Embaraer has built untill this point. It is easily upgradeable to much larger jet. which Sukhoi already announced. There is no chance for Embaraer to compete in that segment. There is also Superjet VIP like Boeing BBJ.
Bombardier, and later COMAC also is going into larger than regional as this segment is not very big. Embarer simply dont get it.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/jp-morgan-downgrades-embraer-on-backlog-concerns-business-jet-outlook-376975/
JP Morgan downgrades Embraer on backlog concerns, business jet outlook
But Embraer will have to compete on each order with Bombardier CRJs and new entrants, including the Mitsubishi Regional Jet, Comac ARJ-21, Bombardier CS100 and Sukhoi Superjet. The latter four aircraft types have accounted for 51% of 430 net orders from 2009-2011, versus only 19% between 2007-2008, JP Morgan says.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/russias-united-aircraft-to-develop-new-twin-jet-375938/

You are so petty in your twisting of the facts that it is farcically comical!

Of course of course Embraer an established manufacturer with a solid order book will just fold in the face of competition with the MS-21 and Superjet-100….don’t think so.

Let see how solid that order book remain after two to three years.

So your current pet theory with the KC-390 is the program will have no R&D skills benefit for Brazil. That is such a nonsensical idea it is almost child like in its outlook! How old you JSR? Only a child would come up with such a silly idea!

There is no $180b Aviation industry modernization programes in Brazil. so i guess they are not even trying to built Tier-1 supply chain.
The less said about KC-390 the better. you dont approach Military cargo lifter the same way as commerical airliner.

Going on this report the recent Indian purchase of CH-47 Chinook will lead to the retirement of the Mi-26.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121105/DEFREG03/311050011/Boeing-Chinook-Wins-Indian-Helicopter-Competition?odyssey=mod_sectionstories

I always assumed the Mi-26 would be retained as it fits a different niche. Strategic heavy lift rather then the tactical heavy lift the Chinook performs. Im aware the Mi-26 is a maintenance hog so I can understand why India would want the Chinook which has proven itself as a reliable platform over the years. Of course the Chinook will have a secondary advantage in that it is far more deployable on a global scale as it fits in the new C17 they are buying.

So is the Mi-26 heading for retirement with India or has the report got it wrong?

Oh and Chinook loaded into C17… try that with a IL476 😎 I await JSR excuse with baited breath!

]

There is An-124 for this purpose.

It would certainly be interesting to know for sure what kind of reserves are implied by the Il-476 payload/range data, but in absence of hard evidence I am prepared to wager that they won’t be particularly generous. UAC is the same company that made very little allowance for loiter in the fuel off-load specifications for the tanker variant – against this background I doubt the payload/range diagram includes more reserves than absolutely necessary.

UAC is very conservative about IL-476 abilities.
47 ton fuel load is producing 4750km range and that with D-30 series 2 engines.

http://www.polet.ru/en/cargo/fleet
Empty weight 89000-93000 kg
Max fuel weight 90000 kg
Max takeoff weight 190 000 kg
Max load up 50 000 kg
Engines 4 TRDD, D-30KP, ser. 2
Cruise speed 700-750 km/h
Full-load range 4750 km

Add 10% improvement with PS-90. Your well above 5000km with 50 tons and that only with 47ton fuel. so they are advertizing 52tons payload to 5000km. I am sure the heavier PS-90 equiped IL-476 will weigh above 95 to 100 tons. just the longer flight cycle life makes it use higher quality materials and manufacturing.

Power requirements and cooling? Driven largely by installed engine power, which is the same for both the Il-476 and Il-96. Volume? The Il-96 fuselage is larger in both diameter and length. Again, the Il-96 is as good or *significantly* better a choice as a tanker/AEW platform in practically every respect, including these.

Length is not desirable for operations in military field when hundred of transport planes will do daily flights. see the small Georgia war example. 2600 sorties in a week time. Robustness, tight handling and higher TWR is the key criteria for AWACS. not adding further range over the top of 10 hr endurance.

Just like the 2009 predictions that the Il-476 would enter service this year, then. Why should anybody believe what UAC says on this basis?

Russian commitment to the An-70 was very sketchy at that time and remains somewhat doubtful – funding will probably be correspondingly tight, so delays are not surprising. You get what you pay for.

2009 predictions are not so off the mark. The scope of programe is much larger now. more than 70% update.

My comment had nothing to do with the Arab world or Russia.

But, just to ensure that there hasn’t been any miscommunication, could you confirm this once again please –

Egypt is not a part of the Middle East.

Is that what you are clearly unequivocally stating?

Egypt is not middleast. and it will be shown to be thrown out of it.

As if the MTA has any signed orders. :rolleyes:

MTA is digitally created. MTA is part of that 250 transport and there is firm guarantee to engine builders to increase production.

http://www.uk-odk.ru/eng/presscenter/odk_news/1807/
Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin guarantees support for Perm engine builders
The government has serious plans to rebuild large-scale aviation production in our country, independent production, without reliance on foreign suppliers. Under state development programs through to 2020, we are planning to build up to 250 military transport aircraft.

Its a pity the news hasn’t reached Brazil as yet. I’m sure Embraer will simply fall apart the day it receives the telegram.

There is serious decline in Embarer profits and backlog. They need to concentrate on there core business of regional jets rather than creating Cargo Lifter for which they have zero experiance and practically zero gain to Brazilian industry as every thing is imported.

C-130J operators – Australia, Canada, Denmark, India, Italy, Norway, Oman, Qatar, UK, US.

Soon to be C-130J operators – Mexico, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Oman, South Korea, Tunisia, UAE.

With China and Pakistan non-starters, aside from a few small forces like those of Malaysia and Venezuela, the MTA has simply nowhere to go. And even for countries will smaller budgets, the C-130J ,with its lower lifetime operating cost, will remain the medium airlifter of choice.

MTA is in design stage and than Ruaf orders will be fullfilled for next 15 years. so i am not sure what current operators of C-130 have anything to do with new generation airlifter that will come to market in post 2020 period. I can also count resource rich countries like Kazakhistan, Azerbaijan, Turkemenistan, Venzuela, Iraq, Algeria, Iran. and even UAE, Vietnam, Brazil. and why should China be out of it?. They are still using IL-76. and biggest importer of Russian engines.

I thought Egypt was not in the Middle East? As Vnomad says, maybe you should stop flip-flopping.

If Egypt is middleast. The rest of Africa is also Middleast.

On that amount of fuel, the C-17 will carry 70+ tons to 5000km.

Its not. It is 4450km with 72ton payload at crusie between 780 to 815km/hr. slower than IL-476 850km/hr. stop mis interpreting.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/docs/c17_overview.pdf
Range with Payload:
160,000 pounds: 2,420 nautical miles
40,000 pounds (paratroop): 5,610 nautical miles

You clearly do not appreciate the magnitude of this difference – it is far too big to be explained away solely by thirsty engines. While the An-124 is always going to reign supreme at long ranges, even at short distances the PS-90 powered models will not be able to bridge a gap this wide, and that is due to the outdated aerodynamics of the Il-(4)76.

This your opinion. As you have shown zero knowledge about aerodynamics let alone material differences.

Robustness is irrelevant – there are plenty of examples where airliners have been very successfully converted for AEW (Saab 340, Saab 2000, EJR-145, G550, 737-700, 707-320, 767-200ER). Even though they are both considerably smaller than the Il-96, the E-3 and E-767 carry a radar that is 80% the size of the A-50EI radome (and probably an even greater fraction of its weight, due to age and mechanical scanning).

E-3 and E-767 are not AESA. The requirements of large AESA on airframe is at totally different level.

LOL! The complete opposite is the case – they chose to chase what was (at the time) a paper plane over the Il-96, which had a production line that was both fundamentally viable and already on Russian soil! It doesn’t stop there though, their paper plane is doomed to have very unimpressive performance and unacceptably high operating cost and yet doesn’t offer easier conversion, thanks to structural and electronics changes.

Paperplane but very extensive data due to its huge customer base, AEW conversion etc.

No, I mean it EXACTLY as I wrote it there – EVERYBODY except Russia, China and India. NOBODY other than these three operates an AWACS based on a military transport, and even for them it was simply because nothing better was at hand.

I can understand budget limition of India in early 2000. But certainly not China.

So they should chose an aircraft with the longest possible range and endurance for their AEW platform – the Il-96. It will be able to patrol for the same duration further from base, or longer at the same radius, than the Il-476, so that less tanker support and/or fewer AWACS airframes are required to ensure a given level of surveillance.

It is not suitable for AWACS due to less robust structure, need of longer runways. And there is no need for AWACS greater than 10hr endurance as crew need to change due to fatique. It is completely irrelevant.

Rubbish – NOBODY flies such high value assets from austere fields that are probably so close to the front line as to be within the enemy’s artillery range.

Yup they will fly $700m A400m, $300m C-17, $350m A330 and the rest of stealth aircraft so forth much closer to battlefield. Close to frontline means about 1000km from battlefield.

The Il-96 is large and comfortable enough to have two shifts, one of which can sleep/rest for hours at a time.

Two shifts. Is it a joke?

So why are ground surveillance aircraft based on airliners as well? Your explanation does not compute.

Do they have that gigantic AESA antenna.

Of course – the arms embargo imposed, among others, by the manufacturers of the A330 does. And if they were willing to break that embargo, the US would have stepped in – from engines to avionics to other equipment there are a lot of American items in an Airbus that could be leveraged to veto such a move.

As I said China has options and India has options. Let them try it and see how many decades it takes for them to put large AESA on wide body airliners.

It’s perfectly sensible. There is zero indication that Russia ever even offered such a possibility to China, and even then earlier availability could easily have trumped performance advantages for an air force playing catch-up.

Don’t form your own opinion without any data to backup. Like An-70 cannot be sold to China. IL-96 cannot be modified for China etc. This your discredit opinion. They have chosen A-50E .
China has very robust AWACS programs. See the different versions they had. They don’t lack money. World largest tax revenue, largest bank savings, unlimited supply of technical labor.
Even today Russia is offering so much to them. Almost every firm worth a name is there. It means Russia is trying to be subsystems and software supplier.
http://www.airshow.com.cn/en/Exhibitor/Exhibitorlist/Index.html

It’s good that you should post it again, because you certainly need to read it once more. My link does NOT say the Il-76 is superior – it QUOTES Mikhailov as saying such. This is an important distinction and one you should learn to appreciate if you wish to be taken seriously in any discussion.

And the reasons why Mikhailov says what he does have been explained before – as predicted you try to cling to his smoke and mirrors.

I have asked very simply. Show me any intention to buy An-70 and its link to IL-76.

Your own link calls the alleged problems speculation. What on earth you are trying to say with the first one is a complete mystery to me – it doesn’t contain anything of the slightest relevance (if anything, that Putin was talking to the pro-Western Timoshenko there should tell you something).

Putin was tired hearing An-70 again and again from Ukranaian politicians. That’s why he right away mentioned An-70 that this issue was already taken by predecessors. And experts will look into it. That was early 2005.

Also, back before 2005 there was every intention on Russia’s part to procure An-70s, and you know it. This is so obvious that it does not even bear digging up a source for, really.

Show me those intentions to buy.

Got evidence to the contrary?

Evidence is so obvious. 39 IL-476 ordered after second flight. Only 2 at most An-70 orders after how many years. For some reason An-70 is not part sequence planes that will be developed.

http://www.uacrussia.ru/ru/press/news/index.php?id4=987
General Director of “Aviastar-SP” Sergei Dementyev said in his speech: “Today, the conference will discuss the era of digital product lifecycle of aircraft, to share their experiences. Il-76MD-90A became a pilot project that we have done in the digital divide. This allows us to look to the future and on the following projects: MS-21, the MTA, the An-124, which is also necessary to develop modern technologies “, – reported the presence of the director of” Aviastar “.

Proof that you have either not understood what I wrote or are deliberately refusing to do so. Sharm el Sheikh was a *place holder* for the southern Middle East in the distance calculation, nothing more nothing less.

And I perfectly explained that it is not even Middle East. So whats the point of place holder.

It is 555km/h according to the Airbus military site – don’t arbitrarily invent lower figures. Also, even that is probably a mistake (there is a similar one in the C-295N specs), as a TAS of 300kts doesn’t match even the lower cruise Mach value of 0.68.

See C-17 with full load its mach number is lower. A400m will be lucky to get into 500km/hr for efficient cruise.

And lets not forget that your original claim was that it could not be done non-stop with the A400M, so STOP evading! You’ve been lying your face off once again.

My claim still stand. It is not capable of doing circular or direct route to Middleast.

It is not an assumption, it is based on hard manufacturer data. Why should the An-70 be slower than the A400M? That really is an assumption on your part – and a very unlikely one to boot.

Based on superior A400m manufacturing, new aerodynamics. There is no reason to believe it is going to be slower than An-70.

Not a single one of which you have been able to refute. And that includes the 70% figure which is clearly F-35-worthy PR nonsense.

It is more than 70% updated. CFM-56 engine produced in early 80s is not the same as it is produced now.

Portugal, the Czech Republic, Peru and Colombia have all been making noises already – at least some of these should come to fruition.

All these will combine buy one year worth of production.

Going by its payload range performance, there aren’t any unknown differences which would improve its efficiency, so additional changes would only add to the commonality problem for no useful gain.

So which cargo lifter can take 52 tons to 5000km on 63ton of fuel?

Oh and as for that link, the fuel burn numbers are a bit optimistic, but no problem, because so are these:

http://www.skylineaviation.co.uk/downloads/AntonovAn124.pdf

Compare the 1000nm data – ’nuff said.

Despite being so much larger, with more room for bulky items, the An-124 carries 70 tons more (more than *twice* as much!) for half the fuel burnt. Now the Il-476 will be better, since that data was for the D-30KP powered version, but it is not going to cut its fuel burn in half. And that’s already at 1000nm – as distance increases, the gulf widens to become an ocean!

An-124 engines are 15 year newer than original D-30. It is hardly a comparision with same time line.

For the n-th time, the Il-96 is larger than either the Il-476 or E-767, so should handle the addition of a radome better.

Just because it is larger does not mean it is more robust structure. Passenger airlines have efficiency priority.

So what? The new production line is only lacking because some misguided individuals decided to spend the money on building one for the Il-476 instead, and there is/was no AWACS conversion for the latter either. Again, just because the mistake has already been made it doesn’t retro-actively become a great idea.

They are not misguided. The made the most correct decision of creating a cargo lifter. Not chasing paper planes.

All the rest of the world’s AEW tin cans are doing just fine, and Russia, China and India only did not use a tin can of their own because at the time there was no suitable tin can available. There is zero evidence to suggest robustness in the AWACS role is important to anybody, including Russia, China and India – they ended up with the Il-76 platform because back then it was the best they had, even by tin can standards.

Rest of world if u mean Nato countries. It is automatically assumed that they are going to fly from Brussels with USAF tanker support to North Africa/Middleast/Eastern EU etc. With much more AEW from aircraft carriers flying in support. Russia does not have that option. It will have to built AWACS that can fly from very rough fields and auster places for refueling. 9 to 10 hrs is maximum before operator fatigue comes into play with those screens. AWACS role has completely changed. It has to do ground survellence much more than air survellence. It need to be very near to theatre. Who knows in future Russian AWACS has to refuel in western Afghanistan before heading towards Middleast.
India/China do have options it is just they did not want to take risk. No one is preventing India from converting A-330 into AWACS. Or China from Tu-204/IL-96. Now don’t make a nonsense claim that Russia is preventing selling of those aircrafts

LOL! Keep dreaming. Are you seriously suggesting they wilfully accepted the cancellation of the fat Chinese order? Even *I* think they aren’t that stupid!

Yup. In 2006 there was enough money flowing into Russia that it can ignore $1.5b order for its long term interests. See Iran and S-300 example. I can give u a lot more commercial examples.

How can we be sure about that? Unlike my links, the quote is completely anonymous and not attributed to any named individual(s). It’s the easiest thing in the world to make such stuff up when nobody has to stand for it, and Pravda’s reputation doesn’t exactly make it any more believable.

So all the Ukranina media that put negative stuff is random rumblings.
Ur linked only say IL-76 is superior. Remember long term reliability is different thing. Comapare VW/Opel with Toyota.
For your own benefit and stay polite. I have put the quote again.

“According to the statement made by the Defence Minister – Deputy Prime Minister, the An-70 transport plane falls within the category of heavy planes, while we have our own, similar plane, but with better characteristics. There is no reason to go on with the programme. We are producing a medium plane jointly with India.

Now do your credibility a favour and spare us reference to the smoke and mirrors Mikhailov throws up to justify what is ultimately a political move – the issue in question is the link between the An-70 and Il-476, so stay on topic!

There is zero link. Infact he even give link to MTA as this medium project.

By the way if you apply such strict standards to my sources, I will do the same to yours – where are the straight quotes from named individuals which opposed the An-70 prior to 2005? And if it comes to that, where did I say that political opposition to the project only started with the Orange Revolution? My point is that this was when said opposition finally got its way – thanks to the POLITICAL implications of the regime change in Ukraine.

. There is zero evidence of even intention to buy An-70 before 2005 by Ruaf.
It was Putin that keep this project afloat to favor Ukraine. As I said you were living in a fantasy world regarding An-70. Hello r u still living in fantasy land regarding An-70?
Putin is telling about An-70 history to another Ukrainian PM in 2005.

http://www.firstpost.com/topic/person/leonid-kuchma–video-ZBhNdNpRSiY-8876-2.html
Beginning of Meeting with Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko.Part 2 March 19, 2005 Kiev Начало встречи с Премьер-министром Украины Юлией Тимошенко 19 марта 2005 года Киев VLADIMIR PUTIN_ Leonid Kuchma was always on at me about the An-70, and now you ve taken it up. (Laughter) But that is something to be decided by experts, specialists. Concerning the decisions at government level, we are ready to support high-technology project

http://www.russiajournal.com/node/15253
Sun, 2003-05-04 17:18 — admin
“The defense (industries) of our countries are connected so closely that they just cannot develop without one another,” the ITAR-Tass news agency quoted Putin as saying.
Earlier, Putin reassured Kuchma of the Kremlin’s commitment to continue joint production of the An-70 military transport plane. Speculation had swirled that Moscow would pull out of the deal after a top Russian air force official said the Defense Ministry decided to scrap the project due to costs and technical shortcomings

You should lay off whatever you are taking, where the hell are you getting the idea that they plan on using the MTA in the bomber role, let alone with 35 tons of armament?!

I never said MTA is going to be bomber. I am giving u example that MTA has far superior TWR and just like 50% payload increase happened with IL-76. The same improvement can happen to MTA.

What’s that supposed to mean?! It has been flying for 18 years and has carried payloads far heavier than that – whereas the MTA has not even flown, let alone been certified for anything whatsoever.

Far heavier with reliability and efficiency?

Thanks for demonstrating that you did not even bother to look at a map where Sharm el Sheikh is located. To put you out of your misery: It is located on the EASTERN shore of the Red Sea, on the Sinai Peninsula of the Arab Peninsula and is a good place holder for the southern-most part of the Middle East.

It is irrelevant as far as Middleast is concerned. There is no Soviet Union that artificially boosted Egypt role in Middleast. Where it has no business.

Utter nonsense again. Nevermind Dhahran, let’s extend the definition of “Middle East” to include Oman, several hundred nm further to the east. Distance from either Manchester or Stockholm to Muscat is less than 6000km, so the A400M can carry a full C-130 load non-stop with hundreds of km of reserves to spare for a detour, more so if you do limit yourself to Dhahran.

At 500km/hr crusing speed. It is going to take 12 hrs reach there and that assuming shortest distance. It is certainly not good for Middleast operations. Where two things are never on straight line.

An-70 specifications aren’t any more or less reliable than UAC’s Il-476 specs that don’t even agree with Ilyushin’s. Comparing both on a fair basis, speed difference is 10%, period.

10% is ur assumption. An-70 will be slower than A400m for reliable/efficient operations

There is nothing to “admit” about it, since I never disputed it and it makes no difference to my arguments.

You made a lot of claims. Just give u some reality. An aircraft that is more than 70% updated you called it minimally modified.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1842544&highlight=Y-20#post1842544
This will be interesting for sure, all the while the decidedly mediocre Il-476 (despite being nothing more than a minimally modified Il-76TD-90) still hasn’t made it into the air. I won’t be a bit surprised if due to the Y-20 the Russians eventually come to regret not having backed the An-70 instead

It is an impressive feat of specious reasoning to arrive at 70% based on the known differences (new electronics, strengthened wing, strengthened landing gear) between the Il-476 and the existing Il-76TD-90. Even a Putin quote from Aviastar’s homepage (both the most competent and impartial of sources on this topic, after all :rolleyes:) doesn’t change that.

Known differences? What about unknown differences?. It is primary for Ruaf. They don’t need to show all the differences and it could also be commercial secret. The fact is that mentioned more than 70% updated makes it completely new plane. Here more commercial data for the older version.
http://www.skylineaviation.co.uk/downloads/IlyushinIL-76.pdf

Well, right back at you – where’s your cost data on the Il-476? What I can legitimately do, even in absence of cost data, is compare the effort required for conversion, and we know there is very little difference between it and the Il-96 in this regard.

IL-96 has never been converted. So it has zero relevance to operational experience of airframe for AESA antenna. S ee the IL-476 antenna it is huge relative to size and no need to be so tall. Tighter turn radius of IL-476 will surely help in airfields and flight. As I mentioned before you have zero knowledge of aerodynamics for what is suitable for different roles.

Pic is too large.
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/4687/e767awacs4.jpg

Whether the conversion engineering happens after the transport Il-476 is finished or gets built into it from the start makes no difference – the money has to be spent, and could be better spent on the Il-96.

. You have practically zero data about acquisition cost of IL-96. No modern production line. No AWACS conversion.

Irrelevant – robustness is about as useful to an AWACS or tanker as thrust vectoring to an airliner. Same with sheer size – the An-124 is more costly to operate than the Il-96 but does not offer much additional endurance in return, so the Il-96 remains in the sweet spot.

Robustness is single most important criteria for AWACS. You don’t wan t to put that 10 ton antenna & equipment in a tin can. And AWACS have to be deployed in forward austere airbases. Not many countries have airrefuellers to fillup 100 ton fuel tanks of AWACS.

At best it contradicts the precise details of *some* of my sources, but not the big picture. It doesn’t matter one bit when exactly TAPO lost the ability to build an airframe from the ground up – whether that was 1997, 2000 or whenever. By 2006 it was indisputably gone.

So how they are producing airframes in 2012?

Also, it is hardly surprising that there is disagreement on the finer points of this issue – even the Russian negotiators handling the Chinese deal were apparently not fully aware of the situation at the time.

They are well aware of it. It was just they made second decision in 2006 that production line has to be shifted. The could have continued with making planes based on 2005 deal.

LOL! So you are down to quoting Pravda – I rest my case 😀

So what? they did not made up the story.

I *never* claimed Mikhailov was SOLELY responsible, but he was part of that decision process and hence must know – and he indisputably says there was a link. Period.

No it wasn’t in the link. Show me the exact quote. No interpretation please.
It was Putin that want to promote on international market . This pretty much discredit ur narrative that 2006 decision of discarding An-70 was political when poltics keep this this afloat and Ruaf oppose much earlier.
Year 2003

https://www.kyivpost.com/content/world/kuchma-putin-to-meet-in-yalta-15497.html
Kuchma, Putin to meet in Yalta
April 30, 2003, 3:22 p.m. |
Russian media also reported that the two presidents will likely decide whether to pursue a joint Russian-Ukrainian project to produce AN-70 transport planes. Last week, a top Russian air force official said the Defense Ministry had decided to pull out of the project due to shortcomings with the plane.

Kuchma has insisted there are no technical or economic reasons for scrapping the project.

Year 2002

http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/2002/210210.shtml
Kuchma and Putin meet in Sochi
The bilateral presidential meeting also dealt with issues of scientific cooperation, including plans to jointly promote the AN-70 airplane on the international market. Officials repeated their desire to continue efforts in joint aircraft production despite current problems with demand.

Year 2001

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=22814&tx_ttnews[backPid]=215
PUTIN IN UKRAINE.
Publication: Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 33
February 16, 2001 03:00 AM Age: 12 yrs
The prototype was badly damaged in the course of a forced landing near the Russian city of Omsk in Siberia. Two of its four engines failed testing in subfreezing temperatures. Putin and Kuchma decided during their meeting to continue the An-70 program “in spite of the difficulties.” The earlier hopes for a breakthrough on international markets with the An-70 were receding, however, even before the failure in Omsk. The plane’s only likely customers are the Russian and the Ukrainian military

MTOW is obviously (though I realise that normal standards of common sense don’t apply to you) a key driver for structural loads, and using the same parts in applications which are 300% apart is phenomenally inefficient. Since it must be over-engineered to take the loads from the larger aircraft, the part would be significantly overweight for the smaller one.

As a result there are practically no examples of this being done on aircraft of such wildly different size, the 737-100 and E-3 come closest but that’s also pushing the definition of structural commonality pretty far. Contrary to popular belief, not even the fuselage cross section is the same (the lower shell is different on the 737), and they are also examples of a by-gone era – nowadays nobody would be prepared to accept the weight penalty.

This is your opinion based on other projects. It does not mean UAC is going to take it. See the flight cylcle life of MTA on UAC web page. It is more than IL-476 and it is more tactical airlifter so it will be subjected to more short range repeat cycles. I am sure it will be stretched to take upto 35 tons weopon load.

Technically it’s a fine aircraft (though in a *completely* different class to the An-70) but with this market segment already dominated by the C-130J and the KC-390 arriving several years earlier, the MTA faces an up-hill struggle.

Has An-70 ever been certified with even 20 ton load. Just the engines alone in MTA is two generations newer than An-70 with completely materials and newest manufacturing line. KC-390 has 30% worse TWR. It is not even suitable for airlifter.

The USAF? Australia? Canada? Sweden? NATO? While the Gulf states and India would likely not have settled for second hand, I am very certain Boeing would have easily found homes for a couple of well-kept C-17s with any of the above customers. Perhaps even with somebody who never considered new-built airframes, like Germany, Japan or Italy.

This your opionion of second hand C-17. Just the Boeing support cost for C-17 make older C-17 unworkable deal. As I showed u the link that only USAF can maintain C-17 as an airlifter for rough field performance. . just to give u the link for your own benefit.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/09/the-airbus-a400m-atlas-part-1-background-progress-and-c130j-or-c17-options/
When the C17 does operate from these rough conditions it needs extensive inspection and maintenance, the USAF might be able to afford this but the RAF cannot.

Examples? From your own link, Manchester (it doesn’t get much more Western inside EU territory and it is further north than the entirety of France) to Damascus is about 2000nm, as is Stockholm to Sharm el Sheikh. Manchester to Baghdad (already pretty far east within the “Middle” East) is about 2500nm, from Hamburg it would be 2000nm – the A400M can carry 80+ % of its full payload to such ranges, so there are ample reserves for detours.
Your original claim was that an A400M could not *reach* (don’t change this to “by-pass” after the fact!) the Middle East without stopping for fuel, and it has been PROVEN to be a load of crap. Unsurprisingly so in fact, since flying useful payloads to the Middle East was actually one of the A400M design requirements, IIRC.

What has Egypt (north Africa) any thing to do with middleast. When I use middleast I mean SWF (soverign wealth funds) countries like UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi, etc. the countries that keep interest rates low.
The likely place they will need military support and can afford them for operations. A400m cannot reach Dhahran without stop. You wont see A400m in numbers except some token number maybe by Qatar for show. This is the single most important criteria for airlifter. Both An70 and A400m failed it. Any airplane that cannot support operations in middleast is irrelevant. IL-476 and modernized IL-76 can airlift entire regiments of S-300/S400/strike missile complexes to all the relevant places at much faster speed.

Speed difference is only about 10% – too little to make the disadvantages of the Il-476 acceptable.

A400m cruising is 550 km/hr. An-70 cannot be faster than that(unreliable specifications). It is 40% speed difference with 850km/hr IL-476 and IL-476 is even without next generation engines.

Nope, turboprops have an advantage in principle here, thanks to the propwash over the wings. Besides, there is no evidence to suggest the Il-476 flight controls and engine are functionally superior to their An-70 counterparts in the first place.

IL-476 has higher TWR than An-70. And turboprop is obsolete concept. See jet powered MTA and KC-390.

Because they are almost always verifiably correct (and note that I have NEVER claimed the An-70 to be lighter than the A400M, or that the Y-20 is already available), whereas there never is any proof whatsoever for your wild theories.

Its good that you admit that An-70 is not lighter than A400m. and Y-20 still not exist let alone superior to IL-476.

Congrats to the Indian air force, if true. They made the right call and apparently can teach their finance ministry a thing or two at its own game!

I think your premature about teaching finance ministry. You don’t know the acquisition cost. And dollar spent today is worth more than dollar spent 10 years from now. That’s why most commercial airlines are bankrupt. No matter how much efficient new planes become as the acq cost is going up. So life cycle cost analysis based on fuel alone is irrelevant for sparingly used airframes. And 4 or 5 aircraft will hardly give any capability.
See this combined airconditioned maintainance facility for Russian/Western aircraft. How many airlines can afford this outside there home base. Its all about skill of people behind maintaining aircraft not the aircraft. This will come handy for Ruaf.

http://www.aviatime.com/en/commercial-aviation/commercial-aviation-news/manufacturers/4102-volga-dnepr-group-starts-construction-of-new-gulf-maintenance-facility-in-sharjah.html
Volga-Dnepr Group starts construction of new Gulf maintenance facility in Sharjah
Volga-Dnepr Group has commenced the construction on a new hangar facility at Sharjah Airport that will soon be providing state-of-the art MRO services for freighter and passenger aircraft. The 20,000 square metre hangar is located in a future heart of the multi-functional MRO facility which will service Western and Russian aircraft. The facility is equipped with the latest air conditioning and ventilation systems as well as certified fire protection system. In addition, the new MRO base will also be equipped with wide range of facilities for additional services: repair workshops such as wheels and brakes, batteries, structure repairs, extensive storage facilities and offices.

v

Exactly – although I strongly dispute the 70% figure, there is enough difference between the two to make experience from the Il-76 useless. And this applies equally to both fatigue life testing and AEW conversion, one inescapably follows from the other.

disputing? On what basis ur disputing 70% number?.

While I don’t have cost data for the Il-96, it is a known fact that the scope of work which has to be performed on converting the Il-476 is representative of what it would take to convert any large aircraft. All you need to know for this conclusion is that there is not enough structural commonality – and that is not an opinion.

So If you don’t have cost data so don’t make claims. Why don’t Chinese not order IL-96 based AWACS? Instead using those D-30 powered A-50E. IL-476 is designed keeping in mind A-100. Every aircraft is unique. 737 antenna is 3 tons.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airborne-early-warning-redefined-by-737-mesa-and-perseverance-337468/
To integrate the 3t antenna, Boeing would have to make its most substantial airframe modifications to Section 46, the stretch of the 737 fuselage that lies between the trailing edge of the wing and the leading tip of the dorsal fin fearing.
Boeing details the changes: “Section 46 of the fuselage is substantially reinforced in the upper lobe above the floor line. The original Section 46 upper lobe is removed at existing splice joints and replaced with a heavily reinforced upper lobe section provided by Spirit AeroSystems. The MESA radar antenna mates with 11 pairs of fittings at 11 consecutive fuselage frames in Section 46. The original Section 46 frames are replaced with heavy machined frames to support the MESA flight loads.”
Compensating for the MESA antenna’s aero¬dynamic changes, Boeing has attached three-spar ventral fins on each side of the lower fuselage
In his testimony last April, Thorne recalled that the radar performed as expected in the ground environment.
“One of the issues that you do have with that kind of system with an airborne radar, particularly one of that size, is that until you marry the radar to the aircraft, which is naturally late in the development cycle, you cannot retire all that risk elements,” Thorne said.
“What has happened is that as we have moved into that development and finally to the stage where we can marry a radar to an aircraft and get it airborne it has exposed some of the issues,” he said

The Il-96 is larger, so will handle any changes more easily than the Il-476.

An-124 is even larger than IL-96. Transport aircraft skin is more robust than civilian airline.

Correction – all *delivered* post 1997, so they prove nothing.

It condrict your 16 unfinished airframes as alteast 28 delivered.

Irrelevant – what matters is when it and its parts were *manufactured*.

All those parts long gone.

They have not changed 70% of the aircraft, in fact they have only changed just enough to consign prior experience to the dust bin but not enough to make it a competitive product. If really hard thinking on your part results in nothing better than this, you might want to consider giving up.

It is more than 70%.

http://www.aviastar-sp.ru/aviastar_ru/index.htm
«Чтобы поднять машину в воздух, потребовалось шесть лет», – напомнил президент России. «Это не просто подъем в воздух вновь возрожденной машины Ил-76, по сути, это машина, обновленная более чем на 70%», – сказал В. Путин.

You should talk to a certain Mr. Mikhailov about that – he strongly disagrees. Do you think you know better on this issue than the head of the Russian air force, who personally took the decisions which led to both the cancellation of the An-70 and the initialisation of the Il-476 project?

Let me put another hole in your fantasy land that only in 2006 decision to discard An-70 was taken but in reality it was only due to politics continued the project
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/24-05-2003/2893-aircraft-0/

Atleast I am not stupid or naïve . This kind of decision are not taken by one individual By collective military-industrial commissions and they look at various aspects. Putin even meets Boeing CEO for even smaller deals http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/4576. Do you think he does not know about An-70. Its costs, its specifications and the conditions of tier-1 suppliers and skilled labor required for finaly assembly.

It is anything but logical to expect any structural commonality whatsoever between aircraft which are 300% (yeah, I do mean three hundred!) apart in MTOW. So much for your aerospace knowledge.

What has MTOW any thing to do with structural commonality. MTA specifications are very conservatie as it has 30% better TWR than KC-390 and KC-390 is for 23 tons payload. MTA should not have problem to approach An-70.

Rubbish – they imposed them to conserve the resale value of their own property, which they could not be sure the UK would purchase in the end. Stop inventing preposterous fairy tales.

Conserve value for what? Who is going to buy second hand C-17 at inflated prices.

distance from the UK to the Middle East is about 2000nm, a distance over which the A400M can carry almost a full payload (30+ tons). What the hell are you talking about?

Again without any facts to backup. Put some cities in Westrn/ Northern EU (the countries that can afford few A400m) to middleast
http://www.worldatlas.com/travelaids/flight_distance.htm
It is more than 5000km on straight line which is unrealistic in war time when Syria/Iraq/iran airspace is closed.. I am not taking into consideration long range sam or fighters that will push them further to equator.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/the-syrian-bill-is-huge-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=32662&NewsCatID=396
Huge bill of the closure of the air space
Syrian air space is closed to Turkish planes. This air space was being used for flights from Istanbul to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, as well as the Far East. Now, flight times have been extended half an hour. Planes will be using $1,500 more in fuel for each flight.

Military heavy lifter need flexibility of range and speed which turbo prop completely lacks. And certainly no composite structure to save fuel. It needs robust airframe.

Rubbish. Turboprops like these two can climb out faster and approach more steeply than any comparable jet, reducing their vulnerability to ground fire. Stop the nonsense, for god’s sake!

This is ur opinion not a fact. Enhanced engine and new flight controls should enable IL-476 to be very competitive.

Whether Boeing can afford to develop a civilian C-17 bears no relation whatsoever to how cheap it is for the customer to operate or the size of its cargo hold. Where on earth do you come up with this crap?

It means C-17 is not cheap to operate. It is too heavy that practically rule out commercial operations.

We shall see on both points.

All your statements are wrong. $200m price for C-17, A400M the less said the better. Chinese airlifter is ready and superior to IL-476. IL-96 converted to AESA AWACS . An-70 lighter than A400M, An-70 cannot be sold to China. so why someone should take your predictions seriously.