JSRI know what such tests are done for, and I know why they are not done using the original Il-76 static test airframe that is still held in its test complex at SibNIA. If you wanted to extend certified fatigue life and the Il-476 airframe was very similar to the Il-76, that’s the one you’d use – it is already paid for and has thousands of cycles on it which you’d have to build up on a new test frame first.
What relations have original airframe. Absolutely nothing in manufacturing and materials. There would be difference in titanium usage. As 70% is new.
Again, *when* that decision was taken makes not the slightest difference to whether or not it was a mistake – which it definitely was, as the Il-476 makes such a poor AWACS in comparison with the Il-96.
Its again your opinion without any cost, manpower data behind it. There is decades of operational data behind A-50 AWACS. And that operational exeperiance is taking into account in manufacturing IL-476.
For the money they spent on redesigning the Il-476 structure to incorporate that experience they could *easily* have performed a conversion on the Il-96. Again, it doesn’t matter when the decisions were made and when the effort was spent – it was spent on the wrong aircraft!
Again your opinion. You don’t have any comparable data. The most relevant data is B767 1993 Japanese order for almost $3b. we don’t know how cost & time involved in mounting AESA antenna on IL-96. see the size of antenna.
http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/5/8/9/63147_1253127985.jpg
Who says any (let alone 28) were built after that? You have not supplied any proof whatsoever, and nobody is going to rely on the word of a pathological liar like you.
8 For Silk airways, 5 for Volga, 8 IL-78MKI, 3 A-50EI, 2 IL-76MF, 4 A-50E for China. All post 1997.
Even if you find a source which says 28 were *delivered* to customers after that date it means nothing, because it does not follow that these airframes were also *manufactured* after 1997.
I am just showing you that ur links lacks credibility.
3. As I said, it doesn’t matter when precisely TAPO really lost the ability to build an Il-76 from the ground up – the point is that by around 2005/6 this capability had disappeared, and evidently could not be brought back.
What date is this plane delivered?
http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/presscentre/releases/?id=5833
18-06-2012
Fifth IL-76td-90vd freighter joins Volga-Dnepr airlines’ fleet
Volga-Dnepr Airlines has added a fifth new IL-76TD-90VD cargo aircraft to its fleet. The modernised 50 tonnes capacity freighter will perform its first commercial flight in mid-June.
If it is 70% new how can A-50 conversion experience possibly have any relevance whatsoever.
It is 70% new based on data and experienced gathered from A-50, IL-78 and IL-76 operations.
You really need to think harder about what you post, you keep exposing your own dishonesty with this flip-flopping.
I am thinking really hard. No one changes 70% of plane without taking prior experience into consideration. This point your not getting.
I understand it perfectly, and I agree that the An-70 has suffered from it – in fact that was exactly my point. Russia had to make sure the An-70 would die or at least languish so it would not steal the vast majority of sales from its inferior Il-476.
An-70 has zero relevance to IL-476 project .
How is this in any way related to your claim that there is structural commonality between the Il-476 and the MTA? Stop evading the point!
Its logic there will be structural commonality as both are designed by same firm and built at same place. Withsame operational requirements. I am not like you that cannot understand simple things.
Boeing was only in a position to impose these restrictions because the UK did not outright purchase the C-17s but *leased* them, so in fact did not even own those aircraft at all (which remained Boeing property). Zero relevance to any normal customer who actually *buys* the aircraft, unless (as I mentioned) the US government imposes its own restrictions.
Boeing knows the inside of C-17 due to long operations with USAF. So they imposed those restrictions right away on RAF leases. And RAF found out that even after purchase not easy to maintain. very large experienced manpower of USAF enable it to operate C-17 in rought field operations.
Nope, the RAF can’t afford (or rather can’t justify to the UK voters) the *purchase* price of more C-17s and to equal their current capability they would need about 12 Il-476s
RAF cannot justify C-17 but it can justify A400m?. A400m is too slow and does not have range to reach Middleast without stop or airrefuelling. Middleast will be the place that most direct and proxy wars of 21st century will be fought. see IL-76 flights to Damscus from Russia. For that purpose airlifter need to have range and speed that gives flexibility to fly any route from Russia to middleast. Second airlifter needs to be robust enough that atleast small armed fire protected in approach and takeoff with sufficient speed. and than power self protection suite against more advance sam threats.
A400m/An-70 type aircraft has no place in this scenario.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/25/lord-gilbert-wanking-disaster-a400m-unparliamentary_n_2016384.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
Huffington Post UK | By Felicity Morse Posted: 25/10/2012 15:34 BST Updated: 25/10/2012 15:34 BSTFormer defence minister Lord Gilbert slammed the airbus A400m aircraft as an “absolute wanking disaster” in the House of Lords on Wednesday in one of the fruitiest displays of unparliamentary language the Lords has seen this year
His Lordship the moved on to abuse the substance of the report, with vehemence that reached a crescendo when confronted with the expert advice of Pierre Vimont, Secretary-General of the European External Action Service and former French ambassador to the US.
“They found some idiot called Pierre Vimont-what a lunatic. This is what he is summarised as saying:
“Despite the limited success of the A400M”.
Lord Gilbert carries on to say he believed Vimont had underestimated the failure of the A400M:
“The A440M is a complete, absolute wanking disaster, and we should be ashamed of ourselves. I have never seen such a waste of public funds in the defence field since I have been involved in it these past 40 years.
. Meanwhile, commercial operators would need to pay Boeing to develop a de-militarised version which is completely untenable economically for the small numbers they would be ordering, so again it is *procurement* cost, NOT operating cost. BTW, notice the parallels with the reason why commercial airlines could never by themselves make the An-70 viable to put into production, despite its excellent economics?
What nonsense is that? Boeing cannot afford Civil version of C-17 which you consider it so efficient. and so wide for oversized cargo.
Impossible to know – but if they are not it will be because:
1. As you say they are an export customer. With the Il-476, Russia is NOT.
2. Even with cuts, the A400M order book stands at FOUR times as many airframes as the Il-476’s.
Apples and oranges, as always.
Germany is not export customer. Its price was $200m in 2007. A400m order book 4 times?. This is not going to happen. I can bet on this one. Its not A380 that Soverign wealth funds backed airlines are going to keep it afloat as those countries have different priorities now.
As soyuz says, it remains to be seen when the Il-476 will actually enter service – it hasn’t exactly established a history of reaching milestones on time, after all. Current plans call for the first to be handed over to the VVS in 2014 – not a great deal earlier (let alone 4 or even 10 years, especially if An-70 funding is reliable and adequate).
There will be many aircraft ready by 2014. As 4 more are under construction.
JSRits not a quantitative thing. many of these companies show things they would LIKE to make, but very few are actually produced and fully developed.
True with Russia and somewhat Europe.
but AESA in consideration, does seem European companies are further along with the Rafale being delivered in AESA configureation already
i think your prematurely celebrating fighter AESA adavance in EU. There are 10 sets of MIG-29 AESA and atleast 4 sets of PAK-FA AESA. and than there is software about development level for various functionality and engine power supply. without powerfull engine and large nose Rafale radar will be medicore at best. There are certainly far more airborne AESA programes in Russia than EU. First is that giant A-100 awacs, helicopter AESA, UAV/UCAV, radar satellites and bombers.
JSRThe matter of fact is that the NATO member nations do not need the F-35 because the highest intensity war they could get into in a foreseeable future is Syria and Iran, sensor and avionics upgraded 4th generation jets are good enough for them.
Well based on US statements. NATO EU members were not good enough for Libya.
Things are different for Australia and Japan, they too don’t need the F-35; they need something better than the F-35 because the opponent they face is China, but the US is making things difficult for these countries by not exporting the F-22, forcing Japan to develop one by itself.
Actually it is the other way. F-35 is more needed in EU than in Japan/Australia.
In other word, the F-35 makes sense only as a Harrier replacement for the Royal Navy and the USMC; the other versions should be cancelled.
F-35 greater internal fuel load and internal weopons plus extenal cruise missiles allow sorties conducted from greater distance and more effectively.
JSRThere are several high-level political problems emerging in Indo-Russian relations. Firstly, the hugely embarrassing and disappointing INS Vikramaditya saga. The accord securing Russian construction of up to 18 nuclear reactors in several Indian states has started to unravel. The cancellation of Russian telecoms ‘Systema’ 2G licenses in India and the submission for re-tender, and others…..resolving these issues may have prompted Putin to postpone his visit to New Delhi.
On the bright side, the Su-30MKI entered IAF service 10 years ago. Who’d have thought then that 270 would ultimately be procured.
where you get this information that Vikramaditya saga is embarrasing. some one ordered them to deliver new schedule and they are proud of the work.
Ivan Goncharenko told the press there that, as quoted by Interfax-AVN, “the schedule of elimination of shortcomings identified during recent sea trials of the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier has been approved and were today handed to the Indian side. At least that is what had been ordered”.
Goncharenko said that Russia can be proud of the project. It has done tens of thousands of miles, tens of flights and landings have been carried out using its deck, which confirms its combat capability,” he said of the Vikramaditya.
JSRHuh? I’ve no idea what you’re talking about, but if you are trying to paint a repeat of full-scale static testing as something that is done for even trivial reasons you are seriously mistaken. Especially in this case, where differences to a previous variant (the re-engined Il-76TD/MD-90) are otherwise minimal, so it is actually obvious what triggered this requirement here.
Do you even understand those tests are done for flight cycle life and various loads. It has 15 ton greater MTOW and completely different subsystem for internal weight. Since ur completely illiterate in even basic aerospace development knowledge I don’t expect much.
It doesn’t matter if the mistake was made in 1815, 2004 or 2012 – it remains a mistake.
2004 AWACS decision predates assembly line shifting in 2006.
Data which would be useless, since – even if we assume the radar to be very similar – the aircraft’s structure has changed substantially. They might as well ask Airbus to give them data on converting the A300-600 into the Beluga – it would be of about the same usefulness.
Its not useless. Russians has gained experience with D-30 powered AESA AWACS structure for Chinese AWACS and PS-90 for IAF. That experience is incorporated from the ground up into designing IL-476. It already embedded in the design.
… However, no Il-76s have been built at TAPO since 1997, and only 16 fuselages were in storage at the factory, which can no longer build complete airframes…
Do you even read your own unreliable links? If ur own links claim there were 16 unfinished airframes in 1997. So how come 28 IL-76 are at minimum producted after that.
From the Il-476 Russian labour will gain precisely zero experience with new airlifters, since to a large extent it is NOT in fact a new airlfter (only just enough to lose the benefits from A-50 experience for an AEW conversion). That’s a large part of why it’s such a poorly executed project – the changes are too modest to achieve performance competitive with its new rivals but too extensive to take advantage of commonality with previous versions.
IT is 70% new lifter with new production line. It has zero in common with TAPO production line.
If Russia did not want An-70 technology, why would they be so interested in the IP? Also, I don’t care if Russia brings the An-70 to fruition with or without Ukraine, but for the sake of the VVS and competitiveness of the Russian aerospace industry in the transport market it NEEDS to become a reality, one way or the other.
Do you even understand common Russian business tactic of putting unacceptable demands so it cannot be met and every thing will slow down and ultimately fall apart. That’s what Antonov is facing. It has to certify the plane on the same reliability scale as IL-476 with same production efficiency ( which is well beyond there budget and technical capacity as UAC is not putting effort in it)
Yes, and I have repeatedly told you why that is. You are (no doubt deliberately) looking for a statement in those quotes which they _by definition_ cannot possibly contain, so your conclusions from this absence are invalid. If you want to see statements to the effect that the An-70 is superior you can simply refer to the spec sheets of the two aircraft – they speak for themselves to anybody willing to consider them objectively. Or think a bit about why Russia is re-ordering it, ever heard of the saying “actions speak louder than words”?
I don’t need to see the unreliable and unverifiable specification sheets.
Just because Vlad said so it doesn’t make the decision any less mistaken – the guy’s smart, but hardly infallible and certainly anything but the picture of honesty.
Hehe he signed for big IL-476 order on its second flight. Your discrediting yourself by supporting a dead and irrelevant project.
To you there may not be a reason, since you can’t read Russian but anybody who can will immediately find one – the exact passage you quoted shows that you are lying for everybody to see.
Yup i always create misinterpreting of information. It is clear for every one you cannot accept reality.
And I never disputed that MiG and Yak do so – only that their projects have any bearing on the An-70, as the situation for the latter was significantly different in almost every respect. You keep repeating the same moot points over and over instead of addressing my reasons why they are not comparable.
There is zero difference between An-70 project and any other cooperative project.
I did not say they would not share *anything* (there is a good chance the flight decks will have extensive commonality, going by pictures) – stop putting words in my mouth! I said there was no common *structure*, you need to either seriously improve your reading comprehension or stop the bare-faced lying.
Everthing from simulator training to future PD-14 engines will be shared. An-70 is irrelevant.
And anyway, that they are NOT using any structural components from the obsolete Il-476 on the clean-sheet MTA is a very wise move, since doing so would reduce performance on the MTA.
Where you get this idea that IL-476 will not be improved with time with new material and engines. It is easly 300 to 400 plane production run.
And again, if the Il-476 is very efficient and the right product, why doesn’t China or anybody else order it? They’ve even been explicitly offered Il-476s and still the silence is deafening, whereas the Indian air forces is doing the best it can muster to *avoid* having to order the tanker version. Very convincing :rolleyes:
As I said every one is waiting for production line stabilization. Even Volga will order 30 to 40 planes.
If there were restrictions they would not have been Boeing’s but the US government’s – but that won’t bother you, as you’ve shown yourself incapable of separating political and technical issues already.
Read the link again. It is Boeing imposed restrictions. For your benefit and stay polite. I put the same link again.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/09/the-airbus-a400m-atlas-part-1-background-progress-and-c130j-or-c17-options/
When the RAF was operating the C17 under a lease, before they were purchased outright, all operations into such locations were prohibited by the terms and conditions.
11. However, under the terms of the lease the full capabilities of the C-17 will not be available and the aircraft can only be used as a strategic long-range transport, albeit with the ability to land on short runways. The C-17s will be restricted in operational use and their capability for para-drop, airdrop, rough field, low-level operations and air to air refuelling will not be used.
The reason for these restrictions is obvious, they add risk and cost and in the then commercial arrangements, those risks and costs would have been borne by Boeing and their finance provider. We are no longer leasing the aircraft but this simply means the MoD carries the risk and cost.
Like the C-17, the A400M is a better aircraft than the Il-76 and will cost less to operate. And I thought the production line was not a problem for the An-70?
Cost less to operate is nonsense. As I said RAF $60b budget wont allow much larger fleet of C-17. And no commercial operator can afford C-17 lease. Even with US exim bank subsidized interest rates.
Exactly like the Il-476, in other words – the only way it can be significantly cheaper than the A400M is by not including some kind of investment in its price and therefore biasing the comparison unfairly. Which only hides those Il-476 costs, but does not make them disappear: somebody somewhere still has to pay.
Do you seriously think South Africa is bearing the production line costs?. That cost of $25b development is borne by countries in EU and Turkey maybe.
As I said don’t misinterpret the direct information that is given by link.
This is 2007 prices(over $200m). Current prices are 3 times higher than that as provided by South African link. 3 times means $700m a plane.
http://www.dw.de/report-half-of-germanys-military-planes-are-in-shambles/a-2871918
The German government has ordered 60 of the Airbus models at a cost of 8.6 billion euros ($12.4 billion).
JSRIt is not my opinion, it is a well-known fact. UAC tirelessly mentions it in their Il-476 material and the necessity of static tests which you point out PROVES it – do you think they’re going to spend all that money for $hits and giggles, or something?
The key point is that the effort for converting the Il-476 is therefore demonstrably similar to doing the same thing to the Il-96, because the structural changes compared to the Il-76 invalidate experience from the A-50. That they’ve already made the mistake of choosing the wrong platform does not make it any less of a mistake.
So do you think they are creating a plastic toy that will not do static testing for new airframe?.
This your assumption. IL-476 is built at place where all other transport aircraft will be manufactured. There will be no Civilian airlines.
Is the radome fixed like the A-50EI or rotating like the E-2D? What’s the frequency band – S-band like the G550 CAEW, L-band like the MESA, UHF like the E-2D (number of T/R elements!)? What’s its power output compared to the A-50EI radar (power supply!)? How advanced is the manufacturing behind the MMICs compared to the A-50EI radar (cooling!)?
See my link. Decision was taken in year 2004 to create new AWACS. And offcourse a lot of data regarding AESA radar weights and power supply could have come from experience in China and India AWACS. They know what they are doing unlike you with baseless speculations.
All of this can have a MAJOR impact on the specifications of the antenna, such as weight and size.
Not much on this size of project.
Stop spouting wild unverified claims – PROVE those airframes were manufactured from scratch.
You can prove there were unfinished frames for 20 years.
Look, here we go again – you say they do face a bottleneck with the Il-476. So why don’t they let Chinese assemble it? If you think this would work for the An-70, why would it NOT work for the Il-476?
IL-476 is to gain Russian labor experience with new airlifter and the same experiacne will be applied to other airlifters that are going to built at same place. China can do later license once Russia fully masters it. As I said Russia don’t need money those days are gone.
No, the An-70 was ALWAYS important for Russia, it just became temporarily untenable form a political point of view. Hence the lack of investment says absolutely nothing at all about its capabilities and funding of the Il-476 likewise does not prove that it is better – performance did not even enter the equation.
An-70 has zero importance for Russia. That’s why no serious money allocated no production line. UAC does not even want to put in on website. Fighting over intellectual rights.
http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2012/4/20/940/
Russia has asked out to hand over the intellectual property rights on engine for An-70 aircraft in the network of negotiations on creation of the joint-venture intended for production of the engines, Kommersant-Ukraine reports.
Maybe they could, but it would be economically stupid because it would result in their handful of An-70s effectively costing several hundred millions each, which is just silly (An-124s are a different matter here). And from Antonov’s point of view, what next? They can’t possibly justify building a production line for a sprinkle of firm orders (which again is a non-issue in the Ruslan’s case – you are once more comparing apples and tomatoes).
According to you An-70 is so efficient compared to IL-76. Few hundred millions dollars are not big deal . I am comparing similar situations. An-70 already has production line at Antonov. Where do u think the first two for Ruaf are being built?. It is just no one is interested in procuring the unreliable specification aircraft.
Why does the man who is responsible for both the cancellation of the An-70 *and* the procurement of the Il-476 say that there IS a link?! Stop lying – you are verifiably WRONG.
The only link is the IL-476 was declared superior.
Not enough to meet China’s schedule. And if the An-70, a new design which had not even finished testing and still lacked a production line, could be accelerated by increasing funding, why could an existing aircraft with an existing production line NOT be accelerated even *faster*, with *less* money?
Where do you get China schedule of faster?. Only problem was price. That was too low . Not schedule. An-70 does not lack production line. See first ones are being built at Antonov.
Who pays for the assembly line? No bucks, no buck rogers. Fixed costs still have to be covered, in fact by definition they have to be recouped irrespective of the number of units manufactured. What you likely meant is that setting up the production line is a one-time cost, but even then it has to be recouped – the contribution to unit price just tapers off as sales accumulate (but then the Il-476 is nowhere near that point yet). You should stop basing your arguments on concepts you don’t understand.
And in any case, the labour costs environment for the Il-476 and Il-96 is the same, as I said.
Amortization will start from first 39 order. and the next 100 order.
IL-96 Is not coming back. Putin himself discarded it by saying next wide body is going to be built. There is nothing next after IL-476 in this class.
Where the hell are you getting the idea that Yakovlev is participating in that project (it correctly mentions MiG in that quote)?! And if it came to that, what does that have to do with my point? I’m not denying that Russian companies are active in China, the problem is that these are programmes that are subject to totally different circumstances than the An-70, so they mean nothing in this context.
there is no reason to believe your translation is better as ur misinterpreting every link. even if they are straightforward.
I merely pointing out that MIG & Yak did cooperate in various projects. There is nothing preventing Antonov not cooperating on AN-70 project with China. China isn’t interested.
Find me a source which says the MTA will share structural parts with the Il-476. The UAC web site does not.
Nope. Russians are stupid. They will make MTA at same plant but will not share anyting with other products.
So why did China not pay for a labour infusion? According to you, they could have financed completion of An-70 development and testing, finishing D-27 development and testing as well as setting up production lines for both AND all of this in very short time. Logically, a straight-forward increase in production rates for an existing design at an existing plant should have been peanuts to them, and be possible even faster.
Your constantly claiming An-70 is very efficient and right product. So why don’t Chinese or any other finish it.
The C-17 is a way, way, way better aircraft though, so that it costs more is perfectly appropriate (and AFAIK it costs closer to 200 million, depending on what is included or not).
Surely Boeing is going to sell $200m per C-17 in 2012. Unless ordered in hundreds.
Way better? Volga, Silkairways and Polet gets billions of revenues from operations. Boeing had restrictions on how they can use the airplanes.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/09/the-airbus-a400m-atlas-part-1-background-progress-and-c130j-or-c17-options/
When the RAF was operating the C17 under a lease, before they were purchased outright, all operations into such locations were prohibited by the terms and conditions.
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.
It should therefore be clear that the oft mooted $200m price for a C17 is way off the mark for export customers who would have other costs to consider A closer figure would be around $580 million or £360 million for an aircraft in a usable condition, fully supported or about £300m as a straightforward purchase
I could not care less about what the A400M costs in this context, the comparison I am drawing is with the An-70 and Il-96. Nice attempt at deflection :rolleyes:
You’re the one that claiming IL-76 is such worst deal. When comparable in development A400m cost so much more. An-70/IL-96 does not have modern production line. So it cost cannot be compared.
And if you truly believe an A400M costs 700 million on the same basis that results in an Il-476 costing 120 million you have another think coming.
It is 8 aircraft for $5.5b and that information was provided to South African parliamentarian. Similar price was got by Turks. It will get lower in price once more production is stabilized at higher level. But that is long way off at this point.
JSRThe wing structure, which needless to say sits right near the antenna mounting, is different enough to require a repeat of static testing for certification. Just to make sure this penetrates – the differences are sufficiently dramatic to demand that a complete airframe be built specifically to be thrown away in structural testing before we even get to the conversion for AEW.
Wing structure different is your opinion. It is same design but with different manufacturing process. They know the weight of AESA antenna and all the aerodynamic tests. As static version of IL-476 is already produced.
No information about the new radar is in the public domain, so stop inventing things.
Its AESA. So not much different than A-50EI weights. The platform will have greater range than A-50. Despite using much heavier AESA systems. So what else you need?
http://www.royfc.com/news/aug/0911aug02.html
The development of the antenna and radar for the new DRLOiU airplane already has been concluded. “It is completely different than in the A-50, with an active phased array. The airplane will be able to resolve missions against aerial and ground targets,” Zelin said. A modified Il-476 airplane with PS-90 engines will be used as the carrier for the new radar complex. It will provide greater flight range than the A-50 serving in the inventory. Development of the A-100 is underway in accordance with a Russian presidential decree of 28 April 2004. The A-50 is able to make flights at a speed up to 800 kilometers per hour to a distance up to 7,500 kilometers.
It would help if you could at least try to write in English, which the above plainly isn’t.
Your avoiding the issue.
Well, you’re half-way there, amazingly. Indeed, China wanted deliveries much earlier than would have been possible with the An-70, so they took the Il-76 as (so they thought, anyway) a more near-term solution. Unfortunately TAPO soon ran out of incomplete airframes to finish and the whole thing collapsed.
China did not want delivery much earlier otherwise they would have signed up for it in 2001 when first time negotiation started for IL-76. It is the price that change every thing. Your ignoring the tremendous rise in commodity prices from 2005 onward on Russian labor rates. TAPO still delivering airframe even this year to Volga.. so they certainly did not run out of airframes in 2006 as atleast 10 deliveries happen after that.
And now comes the clincher: so why did they NOT give their money to the Il-476 project either, neither by off-the-shelf purchase nor license acquisition, as you yourself have suggested? Isn’t this strangely at odds with your claims that it is both better than the An-70 and available earlier? Could it be that once the sole attraction of the Il-76 (more timely availability) had vanished, they lost interest in it due to its obsolescence? Too bad the An-70 was now out of reach as well because Russia did not want to give away technology superior to its own offerings, so the Chinese preferred to take matters in their own hands.
Russia does not need money for IL-476. IT has labor shortage to fulfill its own order for IL-476 on time. They wil push for export once production line is stablised at higher level. And it will take couple of years. Russia will happy to sell An-70 design and testing. And let Chinese assemble it. I don’t see Russians wasting 10 to 15000 labor on An-70
It is. Vastly so, for most of the same reasons why it is better at these missions than the Il-476.
How is your opinion become a fact.
Why is the Il-476 not going to cost more than 200 million then? It required more investment because there was no pre-existing infrastructure whatsoever and it is built with the same labour costs.
IL-476 contract is signed. With updated estimates on new production line.
If Volga-Dnepr paid so much money to get development completed and then bought only the 5 or 10 airframes it actually needs, what do you think the unit cost would effectively be? Can you maybe NOW understand why your deference to commercial operators as sole supporters for a project of this kind is so preposterous?
I merely mentioning that An-70 untill 2012 is not important enough for Russia as no big money is invested yet. Volga could easly surpass that amount by wide margin. As they bought 5 new TD-90 according to there own specifications and put hundreds of millions into An-124 modernization. Regardless of IL-476/An-124 signed contracts or not.
Of course – all of those links are quoting the person who cancelled it (only to have his decision repealed a few years later – what does that tell you?). He’s hardly going to betray his own deeds by giving the product he axed glowing reviews – which is kind of the point really: want a honest assessment of An-70 qualities, look elsewhere.
Decision is hardly reversed as there is no sign contract. No new production line. Only two An-70 could be delivered.
And again, I did not post those links to demonstrate how superior the An-70 is, I referenced them to prove the link between it and the Il-476 that you were so arrogantly denying. Don’t try to deflect attention away from that lie – you’ve been caught red handed and would actually do well to apologise for it.
There is no link between the two.
As for the engine weights? Are both dry weights? Do both include the gear box? Props? As always you are incapable of properly interpreting such information (and yet have the cheek to accuse me of the same). And I’m sure you have a proper source on the A400M empty weight.
I have very good source of A400m empty weight. I am just giving you round about logic so you can deduce weights from engine weight.
http://ivchenko-progress.com/welcome.do?id=46
http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/tp400_tcm92-6706.pdf
Correct – initially China did in fact not want the An-70 as it could not be delivered quickly enough, and later Russia indeed did not want the An-70 to be sold, because they had committed themselves to the inferior Il-(4)76.
Quickly enough?. How do you know any thing about that. An-70 could be accelerated with right amount of money.
I thought it was built in the same (well, actually more expensive, thanks to the greater investment required for the new assembly line) environment which would take Il-96 price to 200 million?
Assembly line is fixed cost. It is never taken into account into a single future contact. $4.5b IL-476 deal don’t include any development/assembly line costs. It is pure function of new labor/energy/material /depreciation on plant machinery etc.
We’ve been through the Yak-130 story before, don’t make me tear your argument to shreds again. And do you seriously expect the guy to admit that there was nothing wrong, apart from its Ukrainian origin, with the aircraft he just cancelled? How stupid do you think he is?
Here is another story of Yak with FC-1. As mention Russia has no problem in getting into every project of China. It is just Chinese not interested in An-70 project.
http://klimov.ru/about/quality-management/
разработка двигателя РД-93 для китайского истребителя FC-1 (программа Super-7), совместный проект Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Group и ОКБ им. А.И. Микояна
Having the same dimensions ≠ having the same structure. The C-130, G-222 and C-141 were deliberately designed to have the same cargo hold cross section, but they are not structurally related.
MTA will structurally related and its Tier-1 suppliers will be the same as IL-476. So much higher volume of subsystem from same sources.
So? TAPO was in a very good position to do all that and still failed miserably, they did even worse than VASO with the Il-96 despite having more orders.
TAPO was already busy in with orders. Chinese order too big without more labor infusion.
Fine, let’s be generous then. The Il-476 is only the second most crappy transport in its category.
This is your opinion. Not a fact as you don’t have any cost and acquisition data. For example C-17 price stablised above $300m when about 250 manufactured in 15 years. And It was low inflation environment of 1990s and early 2000.
Don’t you think the VVS deserves better?
They already getting best airlifter for best price. Period.
In other words, you’re clueless. Who would have guessed?
I have give you South African link to A400m cost which is $5.5b for 8 aircraft. About $700m a piece. That is the most neutral you can get at this point. Here is another confirmation of $700m price for first examples.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/airbus-military-begins-making-turkeys-aircraft.aspx?pageID=238&nID=25461&NewsCatID=344
After a long delay, the European plane maker starts the assembly of $700 million A400M aircraft,. the airlifters with both tactical and strategic capabilities
JSRUsed to be true, I believe, but no longer.
RM12 is still the most powerful version of F404. look at its non-after burning thrust. GE mentions RM12 in separate category.
in tests RD-33 can go over 23000lbs but it does not mean its certified.
JSRWow, and whois talking about that ?
you mentioned that France has some kind of security agreement with UAE that will give it preference in military equipment. but now procurement has been reduced to 10%. and you admit that Rafale deal was political favor. but why they dont need that political favor. obviously France is financially unsustainable. so no need to favor.
UAE had some planes in Lybia and they have some very skilled officers, I don’t think that kind of BS has any effects on them.
THose planes were for show off. This is your opinion about impact.
JSRAgain, the Il-476 structure is different, the radar will be different to those installed on *any* current A-50 variant and so are the avionics. Experience from those projects is worthless to developing an AEW derivative.
How is IL-476 structure different?. It is exact same design with same x-section except for using new manufacturing. AESA radar are pretty much close in size and power consumption of A-50EI.
It is patently obvious that the situation is NOT the same at all. Compared to the J-10, the MiG-29 was/is more mature and offers competitive performance, whereas a Chinese-supported An-70 would have been on the market earlier than and outperformed the Il-476. So Russia had no reason to consent to such deal – unless, as planned at the time when selling a license to Europe was being examined, they continued to buy it themselves and thus retained sovereignty over it. And that the reason why Europe did not buy was political hardly bears mentioning.
New MIG-29K design based onl y matured in 2009 before that either upgrades or old design was sold .
J-10 has far lower manufacturing cost due to single engine and much greater quantities produced in China. Approaching 300 new built in less than 10 years. As I mentioned ur analysis are always nonsense. An-70 in China has commercial significance than J-10 in China let alone exports. First China has to fulfill its own domesitic transport needs with An-70 license purchase and this could have taken more than two decades. With that License money Russia could have accelerated IL-476 project much earlier.
There will be, at KAPO.
It is not a signed agreement.
Why should there need to be? The Il-96 is far better at those jobs.
IL-96 is not better at those jobs. New manufacturing line with new labor rates will make IL-96 price approaching $200m.
Volga-Dnepr alone cannot order nearly enough airframes to make a clean-sheet design like the An-70 economically viable for Antonov. Not even Volga-Dnepr, Polet, SilkWays and any others you care to mention put together – each of them can absorb only a handful, and they won’t order all at once. You are completely out of your mind on this issue, as you’ve demonstrated before.
Volga can certainly give more money to An-70 project than Russia-Ukraine has combined spent it on An-70 since 1991 untill this point. Do you even realize what your writing. And only for 60 orders new assembly line will not be built.
Stop moving the goal posts – it is insulting and dishonest. What you disputed (and what those links prove) is that the Il-476 and the An-70 are very much linked together.
All your links show dissatisfication with An70 project. And superiority of IL-476. There is not a single negative about IL-476.
Want proof that the An-70 is superior? Look at the payload/range it achieves with its modest fuel capacity (i.e. its excellent fuel economy) as well as its cargo hold dimensions – or refer to the fact that Russia has back-pedalled on their decision to cancel it. You’ve STILL failed to explain why the latter is happening BTW – all I’m hearing from you on this issue is convoluted denials of what is shaping up to become reality.
These are all paper specifications as the aircraft may be light weight with short airframe life. As I said the most lightest material A400m weighs more than 70tons. Smaller engine is so heavy.
D-27 weighs 1650kg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_D-27
TP400 weighs 1890kg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europrop_TP400
Those links do not say anything about the An-70 being superior, because they are quoting Mikhailov, the guy who got it cancelled, on his reasons why he did so. What those reasons *really* were, as opposed to why he says he did it, has been discussed to death. Again, why do you think Russia will now be re-ordering it?
Only two An-70 ordered yet. And than after those two goes through operational service than decision will be made whether to order it or not. IL-476 order from the start is 39. With another 100 orders from other departments. There is estimate of 30 IL-478 refuellers.
They don’t have to be losing money – but they could definitely be making more with An-70s. Too bad they could not have that aircraft, no matter how much they wanted it – China because Russia would not cede the medium transport export market to them, cargo airlines because they could not order nearly enough to make it work for Antonov.
Again ur baseless speculation. China simply does not want An-70 and your sounding like Russia does not want to sell An-70.
Unlike you obviously I HAVE in fact read that link – NOWHERE does it say any of what you claim it does. Nice try, but you’ve only ended up exposing yourself as a liar once more. BTW, why is the Il-476, built with the same high Russian labour costs, supposed to be so cheap? And if it comes to that, why is the production line being moved AWAY from low labour costs?
IL-476 is built at cheaper place both for engines and final assembly. And second assembly for MTA will start in the same place with same Perm built engines. It is two aircraft project at same place.
Those links do not say anything about the An-70 being superior, because they are quoting Mikhailov, the guy who got it cancelled, on his reasons why he did so. What those reasons *really* were, as opposed to why he says he did it, has been discussed to death. Again, why do you think Russia will now be re-ordering it?
So you put your own interpretation on reason. Now where it is said that An-70 was drop for political reason as if it was so superior it would not have been droped just like Yak-130 engines were not droped.
Also, NOWHERE does it say the Il-476 and the MTA have structural commonality (and they don’t). Another lie, how suprising.
It is right there on website. Remember I don’t make up stories or own interpretations on news items.
http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/models/cargo/mts/
The MTA is capable to airlift up to 80% of all existing weapons and military equipment. This capacity is mainly determined by three key features: the MTA’s design dimensions, its cargo department’s size and volume, and its power plant. The MTA’s size of the airtight cargo compartment’s cross section is identical to this of the heavy Il-76MD military transport aircraft. This allows employing all existing loading and unloading equipment, transportation and air dropping equipment and tools. The MTA’s pilots and technical personnel can manage transportation tasks and execute pre-flight procedures on their own (independently from the main base airport), these tasks require from 2 to 6 people.
The high thrust-to-weight ratio ensures the MTA’s operability from airfields in high mountains (on the altitude of up to 3,300 m above the sea-level) both from paved and unpaved runways (capable to sustain pressure up to 8 kg/cm2, that allows its operations on more than 90% of the Russian airfields). The MTA’s performance also is on par with current aircraft’s fuel efficiency level.
Doesn’t change the fact that TAPO proved singularly unable to achieve stable production even under the best possible conditions. Stop evading the point.
Best possible conditions. It takes billions to raise production rate from 2 to 20. You need to hire permanently thousands of skilled workers.
Pretty much every other transport in the same size class, except maybe the Y-20 (and then likely only temporarily, until it gets competitive engines).
Untill it gets this and that. It will be inferior.
The Il-476 is the worst transport in its class, no way around it.
I am afraid you will have to see IL-476 production for next 40 years .
Your failure to address my refutation of your fantasy claims shows one thing in abundant clarity: it is you who lacks the ability to interpret sources – likely because you are simply too lazy to even read them.
I interpret things correctly. So I perfectly understand the reason behind IL-476 production. Don’t believe in BS specifications like bigger engines are less heavy by 250 kg.
So it will be 30% more expensive to buy than the An-70, in addition to being about that much more costly to operate and too small for many important loads. What a great deal!
As I said it is only estimate just like A400m 145m euro price is estimate. There is no sign contract with stable production. IL-476 is sign contract for 39 planes at $4.5b.
This is the contract price for South Africa at this point for 8 A400m about $5.5b. and they are Tier-1 suppliers.
http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/denel-unit-s-reliance-on-a400m-contract-is-risky-1.1307402#.UIxW2YYZmoo
Armscor chief executive Sipho Thomo admitted to shocked MPs yesterday that the cost of acquiring eight A400M Airbus heavy-lift planes had rocketed from an already steep R17bn in 2006 to a whopping estimated R47bn.
JSRAnd new fighters for what exactly ? The “threat” now is Iran, the quality of their fleet is already well above what Iranian AF have now AND of course, in case of war, USA and France would protect the country, so, no need for fighters.
You’re right to say that Qatar has some real influence over french politics, but as far as I know, we have a base and a strategic relation with UAE, not Qatar.
obviously threat is only iran. considering uas has blocked sauid based political and economic union. saudi arming themselves and interfering in smaller countries. both are culturally not compitable. They need more partners that dont pander so much to qatar/saudi. there is no gurantee that some one is going to help them automatically.
there is also angle of permanent bankruptcy in EU. so not much investment return either. so what they assumed in 2008 about France position in world (economic, military) may not correspond to present reality.
Americans are telling whole world anyway that EU simply dont have any military capability against third graded military. so why give a favor of overpriced Rafale deal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/from-france-an-urge-to-intervene-in-syria/2012/09/10/4c83c936-fb24-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story_1.html
NATO’s “lessons learned” studies after the Libya intervention paint a different picture. They show that last year’s casualty-free war was possible largely because the United States destroyed Libya’s air defense system and disrupted its command-and-control network with an opening salvo of sea- and air-launched cruise missiles and guided bombs that no European country, or combination of countries, could have mustered.“The French and British simply would not have had the means to do that,” said a senior NATO officer who helped direct the Libya war. “The U.S. is really the only one with that kind of counter-air-
defense capability.” Despite the public pressure, French military specialists recognize how the Libya war was conducted and what it says about the possibility of a similar intervention in Syria.
JSRThe “problem” is that I doubt if the F-18E probably was ever going to win the Malaysian competition anyway for political reasons. Therefore, some people in Malaysia would have a need to express various technical reasons (and faults) as to why the Super Hornet was not chosen.
If I am not mistaken, the MKM being the same radar as the MKI, it would have its complete ‘back end’, processor section originating from India, as with a lot of avionics which was sourced from Western Europe and South Africa. But now we are talking about technology which is over a decade old – I am sure a lot of countries have moved on, especially Russia.
In 2001 BARS radar have zero input from India. and in 2012 Su-30SM there is zero foreign component. At that time only thing MKI had is cockpit displays/hud from thales. I highly doubt the software capabilities in EU are at same level as in Russia. and that is more critical in exploiting radar capabilities.
http://www.scmagazineuk.com/the-new-cold-war/article/264854/
India still importing AL-31. in one plant 22 AL-31 engines per month. with three plants. its possible to have 70 AL-31 engines in a month for total of close to 800 fighter engines in a year.
EU simply dont have that much production capacity in military engines. and next generation PD-14 is entire russian effort unlike joint ventures in EU CFM or PW/MTU team.
http://uk-odk.ru/eng/presscenter/odk_news/1824/
27.07.2012
Summer brings new UMPO records on delivery
For the first time this year, in June the company delivered products amounting to nearly 3.8 billion rubles. This included 15 AL-31F engines, seven AL-31FP engines, four helicopter rotor masts, six repaired AL-31F engines for Russian airplane builders and customers from China, Indonesia, India, and Algeria.
JSRAll of which is completely useless for the Il-476 – the loads from the new radar system are different, the structure which is supposed to absorb said loads is different and the new avionics are different. NOTHING of any significance on the A-50U is applicable to the Il-476. You might as well be saying that Ilyushin’s Il-114 experience will help them in developing a new AWACS.
Nope. Both Chinese and Indian AWACS were designed to take AESA antenna. And that is the most important structural change. A-50U replaced all inside of the aircraft. That is the second most important change. All this data will contribute to more efficient execution of A-100 project.
No, because in this scenario Russia would be offering the Il-(4)76 in the same market segment, whereas there is no direct Russian counterpart to the JF-17. Klimov is selling engines they would not normally sell to customers whom they would not normally serve thanks to the JF-17 – giving the D-27/An-70 to China however would effectively mean ceding that part of the market to them.
It is the same difference as offering MIG-29 and J-10 to same market. It wont make iota of difference whether Chinese offered An-70 version or not. Russia was perfectly prepare for Germany or China to built An-70. They simply cannot find buyer for it.
Sure, Russian suppliers might make a buck or two in the process, but Russia’s industry as a whole would not benefit as much as it would from the Il-(4)76 sales which would then be lost to China’s superior offering. Especially since the Chinese share in the An-70 would naturally have to come at the expense of either Ukraine or Russia as the incumbents – and with Ukraine continuing to contribute their part, it sure would not be them.
There is no production line for An-70 in Russia. So there is no point for further investment anyway as market is too small for production line. There is no AWACS and Tanker variant .
On the basis that the An-70 would be in service NOW if it had been properly funded and supported, even allowing for the slow progress during the post-Soviet crisis. Hardly a statement which fits the definition of nonsense, unlike the bricks you keep dropping.
Properly funded? Market will fund it if it was good enough. See Volga self funding $500m into An-124 modernization. An-70 does not even need that much.
It doesn’t have to be (nevermind the fact that it might well be less expensive anyway). It’s a better aircraft and costs less to operate, so if it is somewhat more expensive, so be it – you get what you pay for (except when you ignore common sense of course, as the Il-476 amply demonstrates).
I don’t ignor common sense. Infact ur own link provide information to contrary. How u assumed from your links that An-70 is superior?. There is not a single statement from independent source.
http://www.kommersant.com/p665012/r_1/Moscow_and_Kiev_Fly_out_of_Formation/
Dissatisfaction with the An-70 had been voiced earlier. A serious drawback to the aircraft os that its engine, the D-27 produced by the Motor-Sich Co. of Zaporozhye, Ukraine, does not meet ICAO noise standards
As opposed to what – the Il-476? It’ll be very lucky to turn out cheaper to put into service than the An-70, and it’ll be A LOT more expensive once it is IN service. Just a bad deal all round.
Bad deal? So all the private transport carriers like Silkairways and others that have IL-76 in operations must be losing money on it. So does Chinese that want 3 extra.
(http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060407/45447043.html)
Too bad the MF did not work out because TAPO was completely moribund… the rest, as they say, is history.
Do you even read your own links? or you put your own interpretation on statements. Russian labor rates are 3 to 4 times higher even in regional cities than Ukraine/Uzbekistan. And each assembly line requires 10 to 15000 workers. So don’t assume about cheap this and that or some past refrences.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060407/45447043.html
“The continuation of this program makes no sense,” Vladimir Mikhailov said, adding that Russia had better heavy-lift transport aircraft.
(http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120927/176265713.html)
Are we seeing a pattern yet? No? Well, I have more:
Very clear. There is not single statement that says An-70 is superior. Infact they are saying advantages of IL-476 due to is common structure with MTA. Never even a single statement it is mentioned that An-70 is superior. I know all those links. it does not contribute to your superior thingy. Neither Germany nor Chinese want to touch it nor even India want to join it. They are happy with jet powered MTA.
It just keeps getting better – so it was not economical to build at a high rate when China was prepared to order 38 and further commitments from Russia to replace the freshly cancelled An-70 were almost certain to be forthcoming?
Chinese order was with D-30 powered planes at much lower cost with no glass cockpit or increase MTOW. It does not correspond to new reality of increase capability and functionality.
If it prospers it will be because it gets propped up by the people who backed it and whose careers depend on its “success”. On a level playing field Western competitors and the An-70 will wipe the floor with it.
I am waiting for that. Which transport is going to compete against IL-476 price/capability ratio.
That you are comparing the effort to sell it to Europe with a possible transfer to China shows how utterly ignorant you are on this topic, more likely than not deliberately so. A sale to Europe would have killed a competitor (the A400M) and at the time it was still supposed to enter service in Russia anyway – on the other hand, handing it over to China would have *created* a competitor to Russia’s Il-(4)76.
Suppose to enter service does not mean sign deal. Competitor to IL-476 cannot be created out of An-70. Time will prove it.
Rubbish. If those engines are not supposed to go on An-70s, what are they intended for then? No other application is mentioned, none is known to exist and 320 engines only equates to less than 80 shipsets (some designated as spares) anyway – not altogether unreasonable for the An-70 alone. Whose theory is being blown away here (at least if you care about such nuisances as facts)?
You lack ability to interpret a news item. That’s why I put it there.
How much do you think the Il-476 is going to cost? Not that it matters really, at that price the An-70 would be a complete steal!
IL-476 will cost $120m. IL-476 real costs are already estimated as two are built on new production line.
I said you lack a lot of information. An-70 engines will be built at Salut. Which is Moscow based firm so its wages are lot higher than Perm based engine manufacture. This is just one of the item. Second item of final assembly in Kazan with parts shipped from Ukraine. This whole project is dysfunctional from the start. An-70 has none of the data it was built in Ukraine until this point with parts supplied from various places.
JSRQuite on the contrary, the enemies are getting sparse. Egypt has been tamed for years. Jordan don’t give damn. Iraq is in ruins. Syria has other problems to take care of. Hamas have hard time to cope with the administration of the Palestine.
What is left is the weak Hezbollah and nerveless Iran. Way too little to justify maintenance of the montrous defense industrial complex.
u left out erdogan. i think israel is preventing weopon systems to turkey that will ensure turkey defeated in syria crises or draged into mud for long time.
JSRBad, baaad translation 😮
The minister said that during a previous period of time, 70% of military spending went to french companies while today, on the same period of time, only 10% went to french companies.
The fact is that the big issue with selling the Rafale is that UAE don’t need new planes, F-16E or Mirage 2000-9 are still good for their job BUT french official tried to shove it in Emiratis throats, which become an issue to see OTHER french products like Nexter VBCI.
how you know this fact that they dont need new fighters?.
perhaps some thing to do with erratic french politics of blindly following qatar. Now reduction from 70% to 10% is very big . it is not that French companies are overflowing with domesitic orders. They are diversifying to more logical partners.
http://www.examiner.com/article/russia-seeks-to-grow-military-technical-cooperation-with-uae
http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=360578
Sign In
