JSREurocopter sold in 2009 when US was in charge. Now relations between Iraq and Turks/Gulf arabs are entirely different. let see what EU sells from now on.
It isnt Turks-Greek rivalary either. Turks dont bomb Greece regularly neither Turks support arms groups inside Greece.
JSROf course Airbus needs to consent and provide the necessary data/documentation, but they do not need to commit many resources of their own. Most of the work gets done by the company handling the conversion like IAI (or similar companies like ST Aerospace, who will do most of the engineering on the A330P2F conversion, for example).
10.5 meter AESA antenna is no jock. Very serious airframe modification along with larger fuel tanks.
China may have enough money to fund it in theory, but they can try until they’re blue in the face – it’s simply not going to happen in practise unless Russia agrees to cooperate and supply their 70% of the airframe. Why should the Russians do so though, when they have just decided to kill the An-70 and allowing it would result in a competitor that could severely damage Il-476 sales?
Again nonsense. Putin himself is ready for wide body & heavy lift chooper cooperation for next generation. I don’t think he even care about some thing obsolete like An-70 with practically zero market existant.
http://english.caijing.com.cn/2012-06-06/111879608.html
China and Russia are working out plans to design and build heavy-lift helicopters and wide-body long-range aircrafts, as part of their broad efforts to enhance partnership, Russia President Vladimir Putin told reporters after meeting with his counterpart Hu Jintao on Tuesday.
Again, what other option is there for them? That’s right, none.
Russia is ready to sell them IL-476. Do u seriously believe not want to sell parts of An-70 to make it more cheaper. Instead Russians are not even buying D-30 and still selling to Chinese.
Hell, Western Europe was seriously interested in it, and that it didn’t happen was certainly not attributable to any technical fault. The Czech Republic at one point held 4 orders, IIRC. That’s a damn sight more than the Il-476 has to its name so far – India is desperate NOT to order the tanker version despite the A330MRTT being so much more expensive and the silence from China is absolutely deafening.
India is not most competent to judge and great deal of corruption (they don’t care abouts savings anyway) could be involved as airforce pilots and technicians want to get trained on A-330 so they can easily transition to commercial firms after retirement.
See there LCA saga.
Russia is responsible for crucial components of the D-27 (props, gearbox etc.), so the same logic applies as with the An-70 itself – they have no interest in handing it over to China, only to have it bite them back on the export market.
So whats preventing them export it just like D-30 and AL-31.
Considering how bad things were at TAPO by then it is hardly surprising how long the A-50EI took – they will have had their work cut out for them obtaining 3 suitable Il-76 airframes against that background!
They were not so bad. India got 8 tankers and 3 AWACS after 2001. Volga got 5. Silkairways got 8. Jordon got 2.
Amounts to basically the same thing for an empty ferry flight.
IL-476 is going to be heavier than TD-90. Just to reinforce strucuture for highter MTOW with increasing service life. Nowhere it is written of big increase in fuel capacity.
JSRTank recovery vehicles comes transport and it is from BAE US. Those lightly armed EC635 were ordered when US was still in charge.
They want F-16 in sooner. and what if after F-16 delivery they cannot use it in manner like shooting Turkish UAVs or F-16 or ground strike. they do have disputes. thats why they started negotiation for MIG-29.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=54984
The premier’s spokesman Ali Mussawi said that Maliki in particular pressed for quicker delivery of 18 F-16s, which Iraq had hoped would arrive next year but US officials have said will only be ready by 2014.Mussawi said Maliki and Carter agreed on further bilateral talks on how to speed up delivery of the fighter jet
JSRThose funds for transport choppers. Now they are getting strike weopons without any restrictions and training of armed forces. instead of signing up for new F-16 they want accelerated delivery of previous one. so u dont see problem.
EU has unofficial embargo on them. You wont see Dassualt or BAE systems going there.
Yak-130 has much more extensive testing and 16 already exported to hot conditions. Yak-130 has very robust road map for upgrades with new generation radars and weopons.
JSRIAI was the contactor, not Airbus. That’s how comparatively easy this kind of conversion is, in principle you don’t even need the OEM to contribute beyond providing existing documentation and later granting approval/certification for the modifications. fft’s Dreamlifter example also applies here, the conversion work which radically changed almost the entire aircraft was almost completely outsourced to other companies in the US as well as Russia, Spain and Taiwan.
IAI cannot convert A-310 into AWACS without Airbus and Airbus will require big amount of money. u should understand difference between merely part supplying and design changes to aeroydnamics which require separate stress testing.
Who is “they”? Russia? Correction: they SHOULD have funded completion of the An-70. As you you say it would have been cheaper, so economic considerations were obviously not driving the decision to refurbish the Il-76 and (temporarily) drop the An-70 – politics is what that was all about.
If you are talking about airline customers, we’ve been through this dozens of times before – your argument is completely out of touch with business realities.
Chinese can fund An-70 if it make iota of sense to them. instead they are buying refurbish IL-76. even if An-70 is put in production. there is zero interest in exports. infact they are not even importing the so called prop fan engines for its domestic programes. instead relying on obsolete D-30KP-2.
So? Affects the Il-476 and Il-96 equally, so they simply both get more expensive.
A-50EI has recent conversion done so data is on hand for large antenna. it took them 6 years to finish 3 airframes.
Another pathetic attempt at obfuscation to avoid having to concede the point. Both an E-767 and an Il-476-based AWACS can carry their maximum fuel load on a ferry mission – for the 767 that means 72600kg will take it to 10300km whereas the AEW Il-476 will not reach that far on 88000kg of fuel. What the Il-476 can do with 40 tons and whether it can carry a full fuel load at that payload or how far it can carry Mi-8s is completely and utterly moot.
That 10,200km range is TD-90. not of IL-476. power supply is most important for giant AESA antenna. here 767 loses by providing 20% less thrust. so it does not matter if 767 uses less fuel.
it was $2.6b in 1993 money and that without AESA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-767
The original 90 kVA electrical generator in each engine was replaced with 150 kVA generators to provide electric power to the radar and other equipment.[5]
BTW, how on earth is the Il-476 supposed to be 10% more efficient than the Il-76TD-90? It has the same engines, it has the same aerodynamics and according to you its higher MTOW is mainly attributable to higher OEW. I’ll tell you exactly what’s happening here, JSR: Volga-Dnepr is saying that the Il-476 performs practically the same as an Il-76TD-90 which fits the known facts about its airframe perfectly and once more exposes you for the liar that you are.
It is 70% new. it has different MTOW, different avionics and flight controls. different wing. dont try to challenge official specifications now. Volga max for 50 tons is 4500 to 4600km at most. There is nothing 52tons to 5000km.
You are NOT looking – who are you trying to fool here? Apart from being quite optimistic, the Volga-Dnepr data broadly matches the Il-476 diagram, so I’m not sure what non-linearity you are referring to. It is possible that due to potentially less strict reserves being assumed, their data would include additional kink points if plotted, as most of the other plots (C-17, A400M, XC-2, An-70 etc.) already do.
it does not match. try. 50 ton load.
Since the Il-76TD-90 is a very good approximation of Il-476 performance this doesn’t really change anything really – at the end of the day it’s substandard, no matter what.
have u looked at Volga site again. it shows 50ton to 4500km. and IL-476 is 52 tons to 5000km. so how is TD-90 good approximation?
JSRIrakis want speed up of US arms delivery and US arms comes with restriction in use.
Currently Arabs are more concerned with Russian arms so this small deal flew under the radar. This guy is GM of state television not some columnist
http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2012/10/18/244412.html
Once they see L-159 arriving and actual use in operations. Pressure will build up. inncase of L-159 it is not just US but any combination EU core like France/Germany can put brakes by putting EU wide embargo. Your underestimating EU dependence starting from Energy to banking sector and all the way to surplus orders for Airbus.
we dont know how Czech republic uses Gripen.. I dont think Czech use Gripen with intensive strike weopons. so training of Czech pilots have no relevance to more intensive use in desert by irak. Yak-130 has 10,000hr airframe life and validated through very long development cycle.
JSRNo European country has expressed interest in such a thing – there’s no reason why it could not be done. BTW, the A-50EI radar was offered to South Korea and Australia by IAI, mounted on the A310 (incase you are wondering what the significance is, it’s the same fuselage structure as the A330, just shorter/smaller). They realised that these countries, which had other options, would not look twice at the Il-76 platform (even with PS-90 engines).
They cannot express interest in some thing they cannot afford and I highly doubt Airbus military has self fund money after debacle of A400M .
Robustness that is completely useless for the intended roles. I am not going to stop comparing it to whatever I like just because it hurts your feelings to see the Il-476 exposed as a total lemon.
It is relevant and as next generation AWACS are going to to be used in ground strike and UAV controller role. It may have to land on make shift airstrips to refuel instead of using valuable tankers for refueling AWACS. AWACS is not longer for higher end conflict but lower end survellence also.
It is in demand because to date there is nothing better (like the A400M or An-70) available in this class and because it is dirt cheap (which the Il-476 will no longer be). You are basing this conclusion on flawed assumptions which will not apply to the Il-476 or require competing designs to be kept out of the market artificially.
They could have funded completion of An-70 instead of spending money on refurbishment buy of IL-76. I don’t think An-70 need billions according to ur logic as it is finished product.
Boeing did so for just 4 Japanese 767s – even though that will have been very expensive, that it was feasible at all for such a small run shows this kind of surgery on a commercial airliner isn’t all that difficult to do.
Things were cheaper in 1990s. It is not going to happen now.
Compared to just about anything. Thanks for making my point, the E-767 with bulky 1980s electronics (don’t be so sure a new radar would be heavier, look at the MESA radar on the E-737!) manages 10300km on 72600kg of fuel. The A-50EI requires 88000kg (almost 20% more) to achieve slightly less.
IL-476 with 40tons goes to 6700km and certainly it is not carrying 88ton fuel with 40 ton load. At 20 ton load. Range will be above 9000km. which is perfectly reasonable because 4 engine of A-50 produces 20% more power supply than twin engine of B-767.
See this virtual loading IL-76. At zero load range is 10,200km. IL-476 is 10% efficient than TD-90.
It can carry two Mi-8 choppers to 9300km range. These are modernized vesion for the cargo carrier.
http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/charter/fleet/il76/map/
Classic case in point – the Il-76/476 can only reach competitive payload/range by burning considerably more fuel than the competition.
At $100m less acquisition cost than new A-330
Well, they ARE going to repeat it, because the new wing structure of the Il-476 requires them to start from scratch as well. If it ends up taking less than 10 years that will simply be because it would not have taken this long on the Il-96 either, so let’s see what happens!
New structure is required for better manufacturing and better aerodynamic quality.
I had posted a complete payload/range diagram for early model C-17s from a US military document before this discussion was split off from the Russian air force news thread into its own topic. Interested parties can look it up there, anybody else who is prepared to take my word for it need only look further back in this subject for the expanded Il-476 diagram – the data plotted is the same
As for fuel, anybody with better maths skills than you (that’ll be 90% of the human population, in other words) can deduce fuel loads for various scenarios from the graph by referring to the empty weights given in Boeing’s spec sheet. Just because you are too lazy, dishonest or incompetent to do so doesn’t mean other people are.
The data I am looking is simply not there. See the link that I provided from Volga site. It shows various loads with actual range. As different weight has different behavior. It is not linear.
JSRJapan cannot bargain. this more like skill retention programe than yearly procurement. they have same problem in space lunches.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_15_2012_p28-504957.xml
JSRwell some funny ideas and conclusions… anyway, Aero Vodochody prospers in good way, 2011 year profit was 175 million Crowns and annual turnover over 2,2 milliard Crowns. Obout “no upgrade future” of L-159, Aero Vodochody is working on modernization of first eight L-159A of Czech Air force.
its merely $9m profit if i doing correct conversion. without state funding there will be no improvement. this L-159 is not even suitable for training newest fighters. but biggest risk is non implementation of contract and support over long term as Czech will be importing systems from other countries . otherwise why M-346/Hawk not even attempting to selll and they have already production line running.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Czechs-Bounce-So-Bolivia-Goes-Chinese-05844/
Czechs Bounce, So Bolivia Goes Chinese
unless the price is really low and some other products are included in $1b.
JSRMuch like the Il-476 is (fortunately!) not typical of Russian aerospace capabilities, neither does the ARJ21 mean that every aircraft China makes is similarly flawed.
Every aircraft made in China is flawed for present time. they are obsolete. see the spey engine powered JH-7. The dysfunctional C919 project. trying to built a airframer (alot of man hours required) in coastal city wages.
I am not “interpreting” a damn thing – they are my OWN words after all. Your hubris is quite ludicrous – we’ve now arrived at a point where you claim to have more authority over what my statements should mean than I do myself. Do you even realise how stupid it makes you look?
your statements have changed with time.
So your point was solely about the modernisation after all. Which we’ve already dealt with – although the Il-96 line was/is in no great shape, being only 20% there still unquestionably beats having to go 100% of the way.
Actually you dont know even a thing about heavy airlifter. and constantly comparing it to a passenger airline. I said if EADS has to developed a IL-476 competitor. it will cost them over a $50b and 20 year development cycle.
So, no different than the Il-476 here then. While it has no advantage in this particular respect, it doesn’t have a disadvantage either. Since it is massively superior in just about every other way though, why would you not choose the Il-96?
superior?
Nice try – except I’m not proposing the Il-96 for heavy lift, but for AEW and refuelling, which have profiles quite similar to airline usage.
If it was that easy you would have seen A-330 AEW by now.
Also, you are severely underestimating the sheer intensity of even intercontinental airline operations – each cycle might be less demanding than a military cargo mission, but it racks up those cycles at a comparatively insane rate. Long range airliner derivatives in military service regularly last decades longer than they would in commercial service simply because they are not flown anywhere near as much.
There is military grade robustness in those airlifters. see Silkairways crash examples. You cannot compare it with passenger airlines.
Considering what a bad heavy lifter, tanker and AWACS it is the price tag is FAR from reasonable! Especially since you’ll have to pay for AWACS/tanker conversion first. Price/performance has two components, and they both matter equally – mind you, as I keep pointing out, the Il-476 isn’t even particularly cheap in its own right at all.
This ur opinion not a fact. Infact it is great demand both in private cargo and armed forces. China never buys second hand but it is forced to buy 3 refurbished IL-76.
Yes, and by being a larger aircraft, the Il-96 is going to handle that large antenna better, if anything.
it is not sturdy and no one is going to waste time on aerodynamic testing.
You can put additional fuel tanks into the Il-96 (the baggage compartments are perfect for this purpose as unlike the Il-476 the tanks will not encroach on crew space) as well. My, you are desperate, aren’t you? Even you generally stay away from using double standards THIS blatant.
Also, simply adding more fuel to compensate for miserable aerodynamics will do nothing to fix the operating cost disadvantage for the Il-476.
miserable aerodynamic performance?. compared to what?.
see 767 AWACS specification. it is 9.1m rotodome non AESA. Compared to 10.5m of A-50EI AESA. Once you put much heavier AESA that 10,300km range will be reduced. Its engine power is still less by 20%.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/awacs/767/767specs.html
Glad you’ve come round to recognise it. And since this considerable effort would have to be made regardless of which platform is chosen, they might as well go for the better-performing option – the Il-96.
No it doesnot as IL-96 still need AESA AWACS testing for airframe. It takes decade worth of effort. which no one is going to repeat.
Massive fail.
It is not a guess estimation and you know that perfectly well. All of the data in that diagram came straight from the manufacturers including the C-17 (early variant data was actually based on a US military diagram!).
You only have data for 45tons to 7400km for C-17. You dont have any data for the amount of fuel and speed for those figures.
JSRWhat does UK relations with Saudi Arabia have to do with this contract between a Czech company and Iraq?! NOTHING!
yup it has nothing to do with. In fact it is UK lack of support for Saudi politics that created this problem in first place for BAE. The same will happen with EADS/Airbus/Eurocopter/Dassualt.
What do Lockheed Martin F16 deliveries have to do with this contract?! NOTHING!
do u seriously think LM production capacity is so low that it can only deliver 36 F-16 in 8 years?. this second set of 18 is still hanging. These problems are even before the delivery of planes. These problems will multiply Irak actually use them in anti-terroist operations.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iraq-presses-us-faster-arms-deliveries-17512720
By ADAM SCHRECK Associated Press
BAGHDAD October 19, 2012 (AP)Iraq’s prime minister pressed for faster deliveries of weapons to help arm his country’s military during a Thursday meeting with a senior U.S. defense official.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iQxzQ7bgFKbLxKd3e52e9nEBj6-g?docId=CNG.7028582adc5b8b89c6e9632ff5db83ae.101
Baghdad and Washington, meanwhile, appear close to sealing a deal for a second set of 18 F-16 fighter planes, but US embassy spokesman Frank Finver said the agreement had not been finalised.
What do you know about the Czech economy or its relations with other Western nations?! CLEARLY NOTHING!
Because Turks/Sauid/Qatar/UAE are going to use there economic power to halt any weopons delivery to Irak. once they find out that Czech republic is building Irak airforce and acutally delivering the planes. than fun will start. These planes have no upgrade future as by the time they are delivered Czech company will out of business any way if not the whole country.
JSRI have claimed none of those things.
What I have said a few times is that the Chinese would likely be smart enough not to fall into the same political and economical traps with the Y-20 as the Russians did with the Il-476. Certainly what little information we have on the Y-20 seems to indicate a far greater scope of change from the basic Il-76. Does that make it a better aircraft? Potentially, although I have ALWAYS made sure to point out that China, at least currently, lacks a counterpart to the PS-90A, which could compromise performance.
Neither have I ever seriously suggested that the Y-20 would fly earlier, just that (particularly with the 2+ year delay the Il-476 has now accumulated) it could fly soon enough to potentially make China lose interest in an Il-476 acquisition.
Chinese smart enough. How u came to this conclusion. Have u looked it at the amount of time, money, manpower they had wasted on inefficient aerospace projects. For example Superjet and MS21 is going to use side stick control cockpit like Airbus. But Chinese uses Boeing type for ARJ-21 and Airbus style for C919. And these are very obvious things. Y-20 will be the same overweight and underperforming with questionable quality product. The only way Chinese are going to lose interest in IL-476 when Russia is buying so many that Chinese have to wait for ever.
What can I say, the above comment kind of belies the claim that your comprehension is good, to put it mildly – how could you have misunderstood me so badly? Or maybe it is that you are deliberately putting words into my mouth?
I never misunderstood. Your interpreting them differently.
It is interesting that you should compare the ARJ21 to the Il-476 – although it was no doubt an accident, it is actually pretty apt! Both are shaping up to be uncompetitive failures for rather similar reasons.
ARJ-21 is also recirculation of 1970s era product.There is hint in it. With modern engines, cockpit, flight controls but all imported and taking way longer than IL-476.
Inflation would affect the Il-476 too, so the gap would still be nowhere near as big as that, thanks to all the items which the Il-96 does not have to cover, and its operating cost disadvantage remains crushing.
I am not even going to inflation. Modern assembly line requires much higher skilled labor and it cost different labor rates. It isn’t 1980s assembly line.
As I said, the Il-96 would compensate its higher (and it would in all probability not be nearly as much higher as it is in your alternate dream universe) purchase price in a hurry. Last but not least, the Il-96 gives you a step change in performance for your money, so a certain price increment would actually be perfectly appropriate.
IL-96 does not have much advantage as there is no AWACS version of it. And they are not going to waste resources on going over another AWACS product.
Because the presidential aircraft is built in even smaller numbers than an AWACS or tanker and includes a lot of specialised equipment – the airframe itself will constitute only a small part of that figure.
Advance airlifter has a lot more flight quality testing. Why do u think C-17 cost as much as A-380 and A400m as much as A330F
As for service life, according to your favourite UAC spec sheet it has half the service life in flight hours of the Il-96 – to be honest even I hope that’s not accurate! Whether they’ll have managed to double fatigue life with just an updated wing structure and new landing gear (thus matching, let alone exceeding, the Il-96) is very debatable, but I would have expected at least SOME improvement.
Your comparing service life of heavy lifter with passenger airline. It is like comparing fighter service life with bomber. IL-476 has lot more service life than previous versions.
Let’s wait how many Rafales they end up operating – the MKI started out with far less than 270 orders too. Also, there is far more than just lower operating cost to the Il-96 – things like far and away superior performance, for instance :rolleyes:
We have to wait very long time to find out. But these is unlikely to surpass MKI as MKI acquisition costs are low.
That’s the exasperating thing about the Il-476 – it offers practically NO benefits at all over the more suitable and more efficient Il-96, other than a purchase price advantage of uncertain and highly doubtful magnitude.
Its AWACS, Tanker and heavy lifter all in one and very reasonably priced.
It’s simple really – the scope of the work required to bring Il-96 production up to scratch was undeniably *far* less than that spent on moving Il-476 manufacture to Aviastar – that is simply not in question. The facility was already on Russian soil and, though not entirely healthy, capable of operating – for the Il-476 neither of those things applied. So why would the cost of putting the Il-96 back on its feet NOT be correspondingly lower?
There is nothing in common with old and new production line.
You can derive a pretty decent estimate from looking up how far both aircraft fly with a 20 ton payload (approximately the weight of the current A-50 radar). This will result in an optimistic value in either case, as no drag penalty has been considered, but since the Il-96 is larger it should if anything suffer less in this regard.
It is not just weight but large antenna. And special fuel tanks that increase fuel capacity. IL-476 is 90 tons fuel. Who know AWACS version may get 120 ton fuel tanks. Creating large AWACS conversion is not so simple.
With the same reduced fuel load as the Il-476 on the 52t/5000km mission, other aircraft will do much better, either in absolute terms (C-17) or when adjusted for size (a list too long to mention here…). The example can be found earlier in this thread, for everybody to see.
Other aircrafts will do much better? For example. Show me 52 t to 5000km range data of other aircraft. Not guess estimation of charts.
JSRWhere did I say anything about program cost JSR?!
Yet again you are playing your normal trick of switching subject when somebody points out problems with ideas that you have put out!
So now you are wishing up some kind of idea that AERO Vodochody will have problems importing sub systems for the L-159! Utter fantasy! AERO Vodochody is a prime sub contractor itself for a number of Western manufacturers! It completes entire fuselages for Sikorsky for example! AERO Vodochody works with Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier, SAAB, Alenia and Sikorsky! So what you are suggesting is that AERO Vodochody bid the L-159 to Iraq without the knowledge of the aircraft’s prime part suppliers in America and Europe. Meaning the type is at risk of sanctions in the future?! The Czech Republic is a member NATO! The Czech republic has good relations with America and the rest of Europe! The Czech republic sees itself as a modern European nation!
I know where Czech republic is located in map and its membership in various organizations. It wont make iota of difference because its merely a sub contractor (employment dependency) with practically zero procurement ability of its own. It will be EU and Nato that will make decision for Czech republic.
Irak is country that consider Turkey a Nato member a hostile state. and Turkey is fully supported by Gulf countries.
. see yesterday news. BAE has problem with cash flow for its stock repurchase as it Typhoon contract implementation is delayed.
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=339804
Posted on » Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Saudi threatens to reassess UK ties
Officials told the BBC they were insulted by the move and pledged to re-evaluate relations with Britain, saying “all options will be looked at”.
The same problem can happen to Airbus from its largest customers. and by that time Germany/France is going to punch Czech republic
US has already delayed F-16 delivery to Sept 2014. and those F-16 will be practically obsolete compared to Turkish F-16 and RSAF F-15s upgrades. now where is problem with this idea. or u still need more explaination.
JSROf course the only solution in JSR land is the Yak-130 despite at this stage no stated interest from their government or airforce!
Where is your evidence that some Boeing avionics in the L-159 jeopardises US/Saudi defence relations or Boeings market into Saudi Arabia? Considering Boeing has just signed a huge multi billion dollar deal with Saudi Arabia I somehow doubt it.
Kuwait has expressed some disgruntlement at Iraqi defence purchases certainly but your interpretation of events is again driven by your desire to paint Russia and what it sells as the solution to all problems.
i said reliable. not necessary cheaper.
Czech republic has very limited own industrial capability with declining economic. it will likely need all imported subsystems for the planes. and those subsystems will come from countries that may not agree or even if they agree in begining later cutoff maintainance parts. trainers are 30 to 40 years investment.
JSRYour reading comprehension has failed you once more. Don’t assume everybody else is similarly impaired though – there is nothing speculative about it.
I have good comprehension skills. You’re the one on this form constantly claiming that Chinese clone of IL-76 will be better and fly earlier than IL-476. After those claims proved untrue. You don’t have any credibility left for further speculations. They cannot even put avionics into ARJ-21 let alone creating glass cockpit and digital flight controls for IL-476.
It is not out of date – the diagram matches your favourite 52 tons to 5000km data point perfectly. Which also means this performance WAS advertised before…
Your misinterpreting the diagram.
Except the Il-476 will be nowhere near 50 million. Not with the cost of a new production line, development of new avionics, development of a reinforced wing, full-scale static testing and years of delays to cover.
Your confusing past and present. When IL-76 was $50m IL-96 cost $90m. now with increasing quality of IL-476. IL-96 will be twice as expensive with time.
$160m is price of IL-96PMU. And this not designed for a lot flight cycle time.
http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2012/9/5/1188/
And even if it still ended up cheaper to *buy* (possible I guess) it could never compete with a commercial airliner of more recent design vintage in terms of *operating* cost – the Il-96 would pay for itself in no time flat!
It’s the acquisition cost that matter more than operating cost. See India could afford 270 MKI but it can only afford 126 Rafale.
Until the move from TAPO to Aviastar there was practically no Il-76 production capability left at all, let alone for 15 to 20 a year. Hence it stands to reason that the Il-96 production line (which, though slow as molasses, was nevertheless operational) could have been shaped up for a fraction of the cost.
How do u know fraction of cost of this and that?.
Practically THE most important feature for an AWACS is endurance though, and for aircraft that operate in broadly the same speed envelope like the Il-96 and Il-476 do, range is a good proxy. Want me to plot Il-96 payload/range into the Il-476 diagram?
Do u know the endurance of IL-96 with several tons AESA antena and time required to certify this airframe?. It has zero relevance.
Shrug. As I said already, even if we choose to believe UAC over Ilyushin on this (and I see no reason to consider one more credible than the other) it makes no difference – even 15% is not even close to being worth accepting the huge drawbacks of the Il-476 for.
15% speed difference makes big difference when u add up the whole fleet turn around time from point A to point B.
Don’t assume other people are as mathematically inept as you are. Most posters reading this topic will not be fooled and see you for the laughing stock that you are.
I am very good in math.
And the Il-476 carries almost 90 tons. So?
When there is 90 ton fuel inside IL-476. it wont carry 52 tons payload. As it will exceed MTOW by big margin. 52 tons to 5000km is done with a lot less fuel not with 90 tons of fuel.
Yeah, it’s extremely expensive and the market would definitely appreciate something that offers roughly comparable performance and operating cost at a lower purchase price. There is also ample room between the An-70 and An-124 for a modern, efficient intermediate complement.
This room is being fulfilled by IL-476 at reasonable acquisition cost.
Yes. Both of those were or will be built and/or operated in Russia (remember Vyborg, until they went out of business the primary Il-114 user?). By contrast, the An-70 would have been viewed primarily as a competitor by UAC right up to the recent agreement about building it in Kazan… and I bet more than a few of the top brass would rather see it gone even now!
More excuse. As I said UAC has put a lot of products on its web page including those not for sale and those on drawng board. But An-70 is mysteriously missing.
Sign In
