JSRPS: regarding the russian edge on cargo aircraft, ¿are all we aware of the fact that Antonov is actually Ukranian? that is Mirya, An-124, An-70, 72, 74…
Antonov is Ukranian by name only. funding, subsystems and final manufacturing all Russian. Infact Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhistan and to certain extent Armenia/Azerbaijan/Uzbekistan population can be included in total population available for manufacturing Aviation products.
It is the opposite of Soviet System where Plants were distributed to republics. Now every thing worth manufacturing shifting to Russia.
http://rs.concorde.ua/?n_id=15157&a=1
27.09.2012
An-70 production likely delayed over shift to KazanAn-70 aircraft will be assembled by Russia’s Kazan Aircraft Factory alone instead of dual-assembly in both Ukraine and Russia, Kommersant wrote today, citing an Antonov top manager. The Antonov Plant is currently in the process of making two An-70s due for delivery to the Russian Defense Ministry in 2013. Roman Dmytrenko: Shifting An-70 assembly to Russia exclusively is negative in terms of orders in the next few years for engine supplier Motor Sich (MSICH UK). Unlike the Antonov Plant, the Kazan Aircraft Factory has no existing production facilities to assemble An-70s and will require additional investments before serial production can begin. Thus, this shift to Kazan is certain to create unavoidable delays in the start of An-70 serial production, which was initially scheduled for 2013.
JSRYou asked if the LCA has flown with more than 1 engine and it has. Now you come up with new stuff..
while the F-404-IN20 is based on the F-404-402, it has several new features including a FADEC
But I forgot whom i was dealing with.. Only Russia is great and only Russian equipment is great. Everything else is lousy and everyone else is incompetent. Now happy ?;)
It is the same engine just modernized as previous ones were bought 15 years ago. THere is no mention of any difference in non-afterburning thrust. There is no physical changes.
RM-12 for Gripen is different engine as it weight is different. and non-afterburning thrust is increased. see non-afterburning thrust of RM12. it is 5500kg.
http://www.gknaerospaceenginesystems.com/aero/global/en-gb/products/Aircraft%20engines/RM12/Pages/technical_data.aspx
The rest of F404 family limited to 5000kg.
JSRI think Israel was showing its displeasure at qatar emir.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/161279#.UInt6IYZmop
JSRWhat does the A-50U have to do with anything? It is merely an upgrade for existing A-50s and you’ve been told hundreds of times that engineering experience from that platform does not apply to the an AEW variant of the Il-476.
A-50U has every thing to do with IL-476. As Chinese A-50 structural tests started even before 1999. And than Indian A-50 and than A-50U. a lot of data and experience collected for installing gigantic AESA antenna. And various loads and avionics testing.
Yup – what Russian aircraft sales have the L-15/J-10 and JF-17 poached? Absolutely none, and this is likely to remain so for the most part, since their Russian counterparts (if any – the JF-17 arguably opens new markets for Klimov) have a maturity advantage of several years and match or exceed them in performance and cost effectiveness. And why do you even mention the H-6? It is completely obsolescent as a platform and absolutely irrelevant on the export market. D-30/Y-20? It is not clear whether the Y-20 will use D-30s, but if it does that will reign in its performance relative to the Il-476 so thoroughly that Russia need not worry about it very much until better engines are installed. Hell, selling D-30s could even be viewed as a ploy to delay the latter!
And D-27 powered An-70 sale to China does not open another market just like JF-17/J-10/L-15.
The situation with the D-27/An-70 is diametrically opposite to these examples – they would have been available earlier than the Il-476 and beat it hands down in terms of cost effectiveness and at least some aspects of performance. Apples and oranges would be an understatement.
Available earlier than IL-476. On what basis your saying this nonsense?. It could have been even more dysfunctional project due to 30% Ukranian content and still there is negotiation going on. So even after joining the project there is no practical steps. There is zero chance of An-70 being cheaper than IL-476. New production line and new avionics and engines investment make An-70 extermely expensive to put into service.
FAR more potential customers have expressed interest in the An-70 than the Il-476 – it came within inches of killing the A400M (itself a far more balanced and modern transport than the Il-476), for crying out loud!
Customers are usually attracted to paper specifications. And in case of An-70 no one wants to order in large order to make it commercially viable.
How do you explain the timing of both decisions? BTW, the official who announced Russia’s withdrawal from the An-70 project quite explicitly said further development of the Il-76 would substitute it. So straight from the horse’s mouth, the existence of the Il-476 had EVERYTHING to do with the (temporary) demise of the An-70!
An-70 was dead project in 2000. It was completely removed from MAKS-2005. There is no link between two projects in any shape or form. And you don’t have any link to prove otherwise.
Been explained to you before. I guess the lag was due to inertia in the bureaucratic decision making and perhaps ignorance of just how bad things were at TAPO. And you’ve still not been able to reconcile the fact that it has now been re-ordered with your little fantasy world – how do you explain that? No cop outs and excuses, tell us why you think it is back in the game.
Things are not bad in TAPO if u look at it. It was simply not economical to built so many planes in fixed time. They continue to built until this year. New production line is more effective and efficient and much closer to industrial supply chain than sending components to tashkent.
1. The An-70 is hopefully not discarded anymore (again, how does that fit your convoluted theories?).
It is discarded the way there is no funding for new production line until this point.
2. You have that bass ackwards once more – it is the Il-476 that has not a hope in hell of succeeding if the An-70 is allowed to compete without artificial restrictions.
I think your getting disparate. IL-476 will continue to prosper as it is multifunctional,more reliable and 100% Russian.
The decision to reinstate the An-70 is quite recent, and that UAC (the beneficiary of Il-476 funding) would be dragging their feet on drawing attention to an aircraft which could potentially stop their gravy train is hardly surprising.
They are merely statements until concrete deals are signed and implementation starts. See the pictures of IL-476 production line.
Back then the project still had Russian support, but was just as woefully underfunded as the entire aerospace industry in Russia at the time. China was still receiving Il-76s and, for the time being, happy with them – why should they inject huge amounts of cash into a project with such uncertain future?
China got 14 IL-76 well before year 2000. And do even know the investments in An-70 programe since 1994?. It is fraction of Single Chinese Su-30MKK deal. As I said no one wants to invest serious money in this dead project.
They definitely were a great deal more risk averse in their Flanker purchases, preferring far more modest upgrades over Soviet era versions and earlier delivery than India.
Hardly risk averse. They got all the Su-30s in less than 4 years. Quick schedule is there priority.
At the time this must have looked like the only viable, near-term prospect. TAPO’s incapacity had not been appreciated at the time and the An-70 was freshly cancelled.
It is not capacity problem but price as extra labor from Russia has to go to tashkant to manufacture IL-76. And that extra simply require much higher wages for shifting to different city.
Practically no amount of money could have bought them the An-70, because Russia was not going to give it to them – and thanks to their ~70% contribution to the project they had every means to veto such a move. Also, every reason to do really so, since it would have seriously threatened export sales of their own Il-476.
Again your stupid theory that no amount of money could have given them An-70 when Russia was trying to sell it to Germany and China well before the cancellation. Your making some thing superior based on fantasy that it cannot be sold in pieces. Infact they are making 320 engines before 2020 which is a lot more than production aircraft. It means they want to sell the engines after it is certified. It blows away ur theory that engine cannot be sold independtly. It has very little relevance to IL-476 project.
half price is 70m euro. which is about $90m.
http://www.interfax.com.ua/eng/eco/123377/
Ukraine’s economic news
Ukraine, Russia start state resource test of D-27 engine for An-70 aircraft
12:00
Ukraine and Russia have started state resource tests of the D-27 turbofan engine for the An-70 military transport aircraft, a source in the defense sector has told Interfax-Ukraine.
The source said that the tests of D-27 engine are carried out with the participation of representatives of the defense bodies of the two countries, the state research and test center of Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Russia’s Baranov Central Institute of Aviation Motor Development.
“During the preliminary resource tests, the D-27 engine has performed completely to its specifications,” the source said.
He said that the tests will be finished in November and defense bodies of Ukraine and Russia will use the engine in 2013.
Zaporizhia-based Ivchenko-Progress Enterprise designed the engine. The enterprise said that the engine’s operating life is at least 50 years.
In 2011, Ivchenko-Progress Enterprise and Russia’s Federal State Unitary Enterprise Gas-Turbine Engineering Research and Production Center Salut signed a protocol of intent on the creation of a joint venture on the parity basis to produce D-27 engine for An-70 aircraft. The agreement on the creation of JV was planned to sign after approving production and industrial specifics of cooperation. Until 2020 it is planned to produce around 320 engines.
In August 2009, Kyiv and Moscow agreed on cooperation in the creation, joint mass production and supply of An-70 military transport aircraft and the An-70T airlifter with D-27 engines.
Russia’s state defense program foresees the procurement of 60 An-70 aircraft by 2020.
At present, the An-70 is being tested after the upgrade of on board equipment and the engine. Then it is planned to start the second stage of the joint Ukrainian program of state tests of An-70 with the participation of defense ministries of Russia and Ukraine, which are to be completed in Q1, 2013.
The state program on the development of armament and military machinery of Ukraine for 2012-2017 foresees supplies of two An-70 aircraft to the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2014.
The An-70 aircraft beats all existing competitors as of today in terms of its technical specifications. For example, the European A400M cannot compete with it in terms of the weight-lift ability and cargo hold size: the maximum weight-lift ability of the An-70 is 47 tonnes, while the declared weight-lift ability of the A400M is 37 tonnes; the cargo hold size of an An-70 is 425 cubic meters, while that of the A400M-is 340 cubic meters. In addition, the price and operating costs of the An-70 are half those of its European competitor. According to European experts, the cost of the A400M is EUR 145 million at present.
JSRits flown with 2 different engines – the F-404-F2J3 that powered the Technology Demonstrators and the initial Prototype Vehicles and the higher powered F-404-IN20 that powers some of the Limited Serial Production LCAs and will power the rest of the Serial Production LCAs as well.
So its not unheard of that a platform is tested with an interim powerplant and as it develops further, a higher powered powerplant with more features is brought in.
Isn’t that how the PAK-FA is doing as well? or is it that the engine it’s flying with now is the final one?
It is the same F404-402 as the previous selected was 15 year old. . 19,000lbs is max limit for F404-402 and that is uninstalled in tests. It is incremental improvement with time.
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/military/f404/
http://www.geaviation.com/press/military/military_20080620.html
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-05-04/indias-naval-lca-flies-needs-more-power
Naval LCA is heavy that F414 cannot solve the power deficiency. It has to go all the way 26000lbs EPE. There is simply no hope for Kaveri-Snecma and ultimately even GE will take losses on deal as there is no sign that 99 F414 can be used in production reasonable time. as the previous 44 are still not used up in 9 years.
JSR… and? AMCA isn’t due to enter service until 2025, who cares what is and isn’t available today? It’s not like you can’t fly prototypes on lesser engines like J-20, PAK FA, Rafale…
how many different engines had LCA flown since project started. and how many years it will take to fly F414/Kaveri based engine for prototype let alone certify?. I have bridge to sell if AMCA start with one engine and enter service in 2025 with another engine.
they should first test fly a prototype with M-88 before even go into Kaveri-Snecma venture.
JSRThe Ilyushin entered the Il-78MK-90 in the competition against the A-330M.
PS-90A-76 and partial glass cockpit included.
That plane is 10% inferior to IL-476.
‘Big’ and ‘small’ is irrelevant. The IAF has fixed requirements regarding the size of the tanker fleet, for servicing its future fighter and transport aircraft.
And a three year wait for the delivery of a brand new aircraft is perfectly reasonable. There’s no ‘very late’ about it.
IAF has larger airforces with bigger planes than France, Australlia, UK combined but it will be ordering smaller number of air refuellers. It seems to me more for airshows and good will tours rather than any capabilit enhancement.
And here I thought that an IL-78 ‘based on D-30 engines and lack glass cockpit/new flight control systems of IL-476‘ was a ‘suboptimal’ deal.
In year 2003 IL-78 cost not more than $40m a plane. RAAF A330 cost $350m in 2004 deal.
I’d tell you that the BAE Hawk is more than adequate for the purposes of training and the IAF did not require an aircraft in the performance class of the M-346 (unlike the Russian Air Force which planned to use it as a base for a light attack aircraft), but trouble is next you’ll introduce a comparison of the Kilo and Scorpene subs and after that the T-90 and Arjun tanks. Question is, do you realise you’re trolling or is it something you do subconsciously. :confused:
It is not adequate. It is not even considered by IDAF. IDAF is much larger airforce with alot indigenous technical abilities. Israel is second largest supplier of military equipment to India. so i have more confidence in them in neutral competition.
JSRNo assumptions required to observe that adding further fuel to the Il-96 would be a lot less of a hassle no matter how big the internal changes are, which was my point.
IL-96 for AWACS is non starter. Infact work on A-50U started atleast a decade.
No, there is no benefit from allowing China to have a better transport than Russia itself, especially when that would see them reap the benefits from exports, the vast majority of which would come directly at the expense of the Il-76.
And there is benefit of China getting hundreds of engines for J-10/JF-17/L-15/Y-20/H-6 (practically all single engine and supersonic trainer market) but no benefit of supplying either An-70 or D-27 engines.
Since An-70 is in such a demand and so advanced in the world that no body wants it.
Just because they CAN doesn’t mean they DO – they have the continued existence of the Il-476 to justify, which would be a bit difficult if customers flocked to the An-70 in droves. And even if they did seriously offer it, undoing the damage to the project’s credibility wrought by their own unreliability as a partner would not happen overnight.
Existence of IL-476 has nothing to do with An-70. That is your fantasy. Infact An-70 was removed from MAKS-2005 well before decision of IL-476 taken in 2006.
Yakovlev gets to make some money, without the Chinese derivative however threatening foreign sales of their own product because the latter is further along in development, similar in performance and lower in cost. Handing the An-70 to China on the other hand would give (several years in advance!) the PLAAF a superior and more cost-effective transport compared to Russia’s own and seriously jeopardise export performance of the Il-76.
Chinese have well developed single engine fighters and supersonic & basic trainers now. And your concerned about discarded project like An-70. In presence of IL-476 Chinese built An-70 has no chance to succeed.
Once they had decided (no matter how wrongly) that the An-70 would be discarded, allowing it to continue into production would have meant shooting themselves in the foot.
There is practically zero effort. It is not even in UAC web page.
True, just wait what happens once customers have regained confidence in the An-70, unless it is artificially undermined to keep the Il-476 in the game.
There is no investment in assembly until this point.
They’ve been talking about offering it to China since as far back as 2010 IIRC (this effort is definitely not a recent development in any case), and still no joy.
They were talking about An-70 to China as far as year 2000. But Chinese came to conclusion about D-30 powered IL-76 in 2005. Chinese paid $2b for Su-30MKK in year 1999. so you think if An-70 was such great product they could not spare a few hundred millions dollars.
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/business/counting-china-as-market-for-new-an-70-plane-2970.html
June 22, 2000, 11 a.m. |
The An-70 project must not be buried after this decision,” Savenko said. “This is a great aircraft and it has perfect chances of finding a niche in the lucrative and forward-looking South-Asian aviation market,” Savenko said. His comments came just days after Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev said Russia would not “beg the Germans” but would turn to China for help in developing the next-generation plane. Savenko said the government was considering the sale of an An-70 production license to China, but gave no details. Last year Ukraine sold the production license for its new passenger aircraft Antonov An-140 to Iran.
So you’ve been standing at TAPO’s gates since 2000 and watched them build those airframes from newly supplied parts first hand? Thought so. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it, 5 minutes on google will turn up ample sources for my claim, differing only in their assertions of just how dire the situation was and when exactly production stopped.
I don’t make stupid claims of 24 unfinished transports in year 2000.
There is a definite and unmistakeable common message that by 2006 TAPO had been in no shape to build an airframe from the ground up for quite a while.
They were delivering brand new airframe even this year.
And it costs nothing to move the entire final assembly line to Russia? No JSR, no amount of squirming will change the elementary fact that it was not economic but purely political concerns that motivated the Il-476 project in general and relocation of the assembly line in particular.
It is not the same assembly line. It is completely new machines, new labor. And 70% new aircraft.
JSRyou don’t need the entire Europe, just the ones with aviation industries that count: France, UK, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic, and to some extent, Netherlands, Denmark, and Spain. That’s about 300 million right thur or double Russia’s population.
And to some one’s comment about Russia being European, its not. Russia is its own category. Eurasian. Most of its landmass is in Asia, but most of its people is in Europe so its both.
UK 64m
France 64m
Germany 82m
Italy 60m
Spain 48m (A400m)
Belgium 11m (Part supplier to Leap X engine)
Poland 39m
Austria 8.5m
Czech 10.5m
Sweden 9.4 m.
Netherlands 17m
Its already at 450m Total. Your off by 150m people.
But this does not even include the extensive subsystems from US firms inside EU products. Like A400m. and creating JV like CFM international.
http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com/2012/04/05/hamilton-sundstrand-a400m-propeller-system-certified-by-european-aviation-safety-agency-press-release/
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/farnborough-air-show/2006-11-27/safety-surveillance-airbus-a400m
that was back in 2007 statistics. There is a lot of dependency on Russian titanium.
http://www.vsmpo.ru/en/pages/Partneri
Bottom line is EU will have very hard time in manufacturing 100% aircraft with in Euro zone countries at reasonable cost.
Not all SARH is the same.. but the Super Matra 530 proved itself as Iraq downed plenty of F-5s and F-4s and even a legendary F-14 with it. R-23 also used in the same war but with less success
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_404.shtml
Super 530 is newer missile than R-23.
R-27 is more comparable time to Super 530.
JSRNo. 1 : US
No. 2 : Europe
No. 3 : Russia
No. 4 : Canada <= At least Canada can make its own jet engines.
===========================
No. 5 : Japan
No. 6 : China
how is EU# 2?. It cannot sell a single Airbus without US permission.It always needs external help for its projects.
Canada does not belong to number 4 either. Majar portion of bombardier CSeries is outsourced to UK/Spain/China. Chinese alteast can manufacture fighters and some turboprops/trainers.
JSRThat’s how it used to be on the A-50 – the future radar might be more compact, but it’d still be far less convenient than adding fuel on the Il-96 (the fact that it hardly needs such in the first place not withstanding).
There is big internal changes in A-50U let alone some thing for A-100. So don’t assume.
9000km on 90 tons of fuel is still a pretty damn poor showing when 70 tons will get you 1000km more on a competing airframe.
And you have aerodynamic data of 10.5 meter AESA antenna on another aircraft that ur challenging 90 tons fuel for 9000km range.
Yes, because equipment weight was reduced, allowing more fuel for the same take-off weight – not because there is actually additional fuel capacity. Do you even read what you post? It states so plain as day in the very quote you are referencing.
A lot of space was created for recreational stuff. It means there is sufficient space inside. And what makes you think more changes are not coming for A-100?.
Been explained before – Russia needed those engines for their own Yak-130, because waiting for a domestic alternative would have delayed service entry by many years.
D-27 is not needed .
The VK-2500? Ultimately a Klimov product and not a clean-sheet design – it’s a thoroughly upgraded version of the venerable TV3-117. And again, what would Russia replaced it with at short notice without endangering the cash cow of its helo industry?
So there is no benefit from selling D-27 to China?. Do you even realize the various subsystems suppliers to An-70 project could have significant losses In absence of orders.
The fact that Russia did not want the An-70 project to continue, because that would result in a superior competitor to the Il-76? Ceding this advantage to, of all countries, China only served to render the concept even less tenable.
They can offer An-70 now instead of selling refurbished IL-76. Superior competitor ?
If the party responsible for 70% of the project decides to cut off support because it interferes with their realigned interests that kind of makes the idea of somebody else pitching in a non-starter, doesn’t it?
So how is Chinese L-15 in Russia interest?. Infact Russia could have sold the entire An-70 thing to China as it was/is practically discarded by Russia.
How does the total absence of a Chinese (or any other non-Russian) order possibly confirm any of your utopian fantasies?
First the plane has to get certified and production line stabilized at higher rate order will come just like choppers.
They couldn’t possibly have the An-70, so whether they wanted it or not didn’t even enter the equation. More to the point, Russia would on the other hand be only too happy to sell them Il-476s and STILL China isn’t ordering – how about you stop dancing around this issue and offer an explanation for this rather curious circumstance? It kind of contradicts your opinion.
The plane has just first flight. Give it a time. An-70 can fly for decades and no orders.
The PS-90 is ultimately mid-1980s technology – the continued investment is merely making up for the shaky start it had and intends to bring it into line with its Western contemporaries in reliability and durability. In short, to make it the engine it always should have been but could not be due to low production rates, poor quality control and lack of money.
D-27 is what year technology?. V2500 is what year? And CFM-56.
I’m a big fan of the PS-90A, but don’t try to turn it into something it simply is not.
Most important difference is reliability and on wing time. And that is the biggest difference in engine generation apart from fuel consumption which is secondary.
Define new built. Manufactured from sheets and billets? Definitely not. Completed from stored components and assemblies built years earlier but never flown? Possibly. There are TONS of sources to back up this scenario, BTW.
So you looked inside the assembly lie that they have 24 unfinished airframe in year 2000?
Ask Algeria about whether stored airframes pass for ‘new’ though. Best of all, explain why China could not get its aircraft, and why Russia (having decided as they did that the An-70 was politically inopportune) moved production to Russia if all was fine and dandy at TAPO?
TAPO is good for 2 to 3 hand built planes per year . This new assembly line is 15 to 20 with airplane that is 70% new. Not to mention it is cost to ship all components to TAPO and reassemble them.
JSRManagement positions in what … Airbus Airways? I see you’ve dropped the garbage about ‘pilots and technicians’ fixing the system to their benefit and have now rolled towards the next trough.
So two possibilities –
1. GENERAL OPINION – The IAF found the Il-78MKI inadequate for their needs and like almost all western or western-ized air forces decided to opt for a tanker based on a civilian platform offering considerably superior performance as well as competitive lifecycle costs.
2. JSR THEORY – A grand scheme was launched by the dozens of officers and civil servants involved, wherein they decided to form a cooperative society that would negotiate kickbacks on their behalf with Airbus. Airbus in turn formed a pact with civilian airliners where they promised to buy ‘discounted’ aircraft from Airbus (regardless of whether they could afford more capacity in a recession) as long as they promised to hire away the IAF top brass as well as assorted bureaucrats.
Your prediction – There will be a torrent of retired officers going to GoAir and JetAirways within the next three years.
No. No. No. YOU have to be skeptical about their decisions. I’m not following you down the rabbit-hole. I like the normal world.
Wonderful. Now you want to discuss the LCA.
Oh and the Rafale/MRCA too.
IL-78 are based on D-30 engines and lack glass cockpit/new flight control systems of IL-476. And any purchase of A330 purchase will be small in numbers and arrive very late. This is suboptimal deal. It will not like 8 IL-78 supply quickly and with low budget. IAF already stuck with obsolete Hawk for training while Ruaf chose Yak-130 and IDAF M-346. IAF either buys obsolete stuff in greater numbers or buy super expensive in very limited numbers.
JSRAirbus cannot sell any Airbus without US export license. and it happened back in 2008 regarding Syria when US refuse to grant license.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-4448870.html
A U.S. diplomat based in Damascus said bluntly that they could not see “any potentiality” that the contract would come to fruition, insisting the sanctions would stop any such endeavor, regardless of how Syrian Air came to take possession of the aircraft – by direct purchase or lease.
EU simply dont have independent Civil industry or even Military as alot of EU based firms are using US and Canadian components and subsystems.
JSRThen we have to ask ourselves whats a K-100? Its the Novator KS-172? The Vympel K37M? The Vympel RVV-BD?
Whats certain is that Russia kept a bit of R&D budget for long range/Heavy AAM´s and that the fleet of MIg-31/Mig-31BM fields a lot of reworked SARH R-33´s and (probably but not certainly) a handful of R-37´s (without the “M” sufix) and are working on a new weapon, when will this new AAM will be with the front line units?
God and someone at Vympel might answer that one, my own take is “someday”, looking at the pace of development for the last decades the correct answer might be “someday in the next decade”.And a 0.303 round can ” in some way they can be quite deadly to the f-35″, it all depends on the circumstances.
But lets think about it, does a 600 kg, radar guided, long range aam look particulary useful to deal with a LO/VLO, supersonic, 9G platform?!
No, i dont really think so.There´s this thing called the “F-22 Raptor” in the USAF to deal with high end ATA threats.
And even if the Raptor is not present, the mix of LO/VLO, cutting edge sensors, evolved network, mach 1.6, 9G´s and the D Amraam make the F-35A a very, very unpalatable adversary for everyone.
its 510KG. 60 degree targeting angle. 200km range.
http://www.missiles.ru/_foto/RVV-BD/IMG.jpg
I would not be surprized if downgraded performance figures are shown in poster keeping export in mind.
JSRWhere exactly are you going to put those auxiliary fuel tanks? The cargo hold is pretty much completely taken up by the radar equipment and operator cabin in the A-50.
How do u predict that all internal space will be taken by radar equipment and operator cabin?.
With D-30 its 4hr endurance at 1000km range. Which can translate into 1000+1000+(750*4)=5000km
http://www.beriev.com/eng/core_e.html
IL-476 has 77% more range than basic IL-76. Which can translate into 9000km range for A-100.
See A-50U example. It has more equipment but still carry more fuel.
http://www.vega.su/production/detail.php?ID=567
In general, this has significantly reduced the overall weight of the complex and facilitate aircraft. As a result, the opportunity to take on more fuel for the same takeoff weight machine.
In addition, the A-50U (as opposed to A-50) equipped with a crew rest rooms and a snack bar with domestic equipment.
Of course, none of these have a Russian-only counterpart that could suffer in the process (the Il-96 and Mi-26 are legacy designs which these cooperative projects are supposed to supersede) and none of them involve Ukraine. Apples and oranges
Russia and Ukrain did cooperate in providing L-15 engines. The did cooperate in Helicopter engines (the engines that were not even in service with Ruaf) that China used in Tibet.
So what makes u think they cannot cooperate in providing An-70 or its engines to China ?. the answer is simple An-70 is an obsolete project that have no relevance in Chinese military. It basically confirms the reason behind shifting IL-76 production.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-10-12/russians-confirm-il-476-airlifter-production
And yet China does not appear to want it
Yup Chinese wants refurbished IL-76 along with hundreds of its engines but not new An-70. Do u see how ridiculous ur position
The D-27 is the best engine Russia can offer in its class whereas the AL-31F and D-30 are increasingly obsolete, if the Chinese copied them and used them in aircraft for export damage to Russia would be limited.
So how u figure out some thing is advance or not? Do u know the amount of investment done in manufacturing PS-90 compared to D-27?. So they want to sell more advanced PS-90 but not D-27. Infact all new engine development contracts are related to PD-14 versions.
Practically none of which were built from scratch.
How do u figure this thing out. Remember all the new built were done in 1990s. remember 64 PS-90 powered IL-76 is in operations. That translate into 16 aircraft but that does not include IL-78 tankers in IAF. So you have atleast 24 new built in post 2000 period.
These decisions are made by very senior officers who’ve stopped regular operational flying ages ago and will have retired from the service long before the aircraft are commissioned.
But in your world, ‘pilots and technicians’ get to choose which aircraft their country spends billions of dollars of valuable foreign exchange on. :rolleyes:
The can get management positions in airlines and may even get discounts from Airbus for airlines run by them since they had sold overpriced deal to IAF.
You have to skeptical about there decisions. See LCA example. They continue to support a project with a lot of waste (various engine and testing places). and practically dead end aerodynamically. Cannot even pull 9g. and there is no certified structural life.
They supported Rafale in evaluation even though it is unworkable for UAE until this point. (which is lowest denominator). IAF is going to afford A330MRTT in small number that it will have minimum operational impact.
Sign In
