I think aside from these factors, engineering prowess also matters. It seems to me Russia is far behind west, not only in engine technology but also in fuselage/wing area. After all, just how complex (relatively speaking) all-metallic wings and fuselage can be? A western manufacturer in the same amount of time that russians spent on il-476, would have a new wing and wider fuselage.

It is not complexity but there is no need for increasing the width of IL-476. for that purpase An-124 is already there.
Boeing had great confidence in Russian engineering skills.
Boeing spent $6b on training alone. and another $27b worth of design and parts services still to be done.

http://www.boeing.ru
In the nearly 10-year history of the design center “Boeing” in Moscow has actively participated in more than 250 projects, and since 2000 he has participated in all the programs of “Boeing – Civil Aircraft”, including such large-scale projects, such as 747 Boeing Converted Freighter, Boeing 737-900ER, Boeing 777-200LR/300ER, Boeing 777F, Boeing 767-200SF/300BCF, Boeing 747LCF, a new family of 747 aircraft – Boeing 747-8, as well as the newest airliner – 787 Dreamliner.
Hundreds of Russian engineers have the unique experience of participating in the project to create the first in the history of the main civil aviation aircraft composite Boeing 787, as well as in the creation of the cargo plane Boeing 747 Dreamlifter, a specially designed to transport fuselage sections and wing elements in place of final assembly.
Engineering projects of “Boeing” in Russia in 1998 – 2008 years.
$ 6 billion – the total amount of training sessions in the period from 1991 to 2012, “Boeing” continues to develop in Russia a large-scale program of cooperation.

If the An-70 is not killed or otherwise artificially restrained, the Il-476 will have a hard time achieving any exports whatsoever.

That’s your opinion. Not a fact.

Nope. Il-76TD vs. Il-476 – nice try at evasion though.

It is still 10% better range with more flight cycle life.

So am I. Read the UAC payload/range diagram.

When was the diagram created.

I did NOT say that. I said that Russia had no choice but to cooperate on the AI-222 because there was no near-term domestic alternative. That the Il-476 also turned out to be far less near-term than originally hoped, apart from being a very poor substitute, is another matter entirely.

They could have accelerated AL-55 engine. Afer all Yak-130 only came in service after 2010.

Which was a fantastic piece of back-pedalling, an admission that the Il-476 could not in fact replace the An-70 – they were forced to own up to the fact that the VVS still desperately needed it. Too bad the Il-476 gravy train obviously was already too far underway to stop it against the interests of its beneficiaries.

IL-476 is A-100 and Tanker platform. Along with civilian orders for engines. It gives them economies of scale that no other airlifter in the world can compete with it. Than there is A-60 that has resume work on it.

Assuming proper funding, no doubt – too bad that never happened, because Russia decided the project was politically inopportune no sooner than there was enough money available after the 1990s/early-2000s crisis.

Even if money is available they are not going to waste it on too many plat forms.
See USAF example. Only C-5, C-17, C-130. I highly doubt they are going to introduce another in the middle. Ruaf will be An-124, IL-476, MTA. I have still doubts about An-70 funding.

Yes, if you use the lowest figure for the An-70 and the highest for the Il-476, for which there is exactly the same justification as doing it the other way round (in which case the difference is only 6%). Yaaaaawnnnnn. Not that even 15% would change the picture, but 10% as an intermediate figure is a whole lot more honest (which is why you didn’t use it – honesty is not exactly your forte).

Lowest of IL-476 is 830km/hr and lowest for An-70 is 700km/hr. it is till 15% minimum difference .

Why was it delayed so badly then?

Do even know how expensive and complicated is to develop longer flight cycle airframe with short lift ability and keep weight down. If EADS try it in same category as IL-476. It is going to cost them $50b minimum. An-400m is already 77 tons with far lower cruising speed.

It is supposed to be slightly lighter than the Il-76TD-90 and Il-76MF, which puts it at right around 90 tons, give or take. But ok, let’s say it’s 95 tons, for argument’s sake.

How can it be lighter than IL-76MF when ever subsystem of it is going to be more reliable and maintainable along with 10 ton increase in payload.

The An-70 will be 66 tons at the very best, no more than 30 tons lighter but its MTOW is 65 tons lower. MTOW-OEW is therefore 35 tons higher for the Il-476, so at equal payload weights it can carry those 35 tons in additional fuel over the An-70. Bearing in mind that the maximum fuel capacity of the An-70 is probably in the 45 ton ball park that is a huge difference – is it any wonder the Il-476 has more range, despite its much higher fuel consumption? If anything it is pretty telling that it doesn’t outrange the An-70 even more clearly!

66 ton An-70 is unreliable junk. Smaller A400m weight 77 tons. Your still not getting the point An-70 cannot be lighter, more aerodynamice (higher speed?) than A400m.
IL-476 95 ton empty weight, 52 ton payload, subtract it from 210 MTOW is 63ton of fuel. That 63 ton of fuel is good enough for 5000km range.

And that is being very generous to the Il-476, since the An-70 is likely to be somewhat heavier than in the above example while the Il-476 should weigh slightly less, so its fuel capacity advantage is probably about 10 tons higher in reality.

IL-476 is not going to weight slight less and An-70 figures are unreliable. It is not a product on UAC webpage. But An-124/An-148 is product on UAC. http://www.uacrussia.ru.

Quit being deliberately obtuse. Niche in terms of production volume, of course.

Production volume & applications compared to A400/An-70?

So? These completely off-topic arguments really are comedy gold! The 767 and 737 are entirely different aircraft in role, but nonetheless the bigger fuselage diameter was one of the selling points of their Airbus counterparts (consider also the 787 that replaces the 767). And why do you keep pointing out the C-130? You are making my point by doing so – it did as well as it did largely because there was no serious competitor for the past 10 years. Hardly an achievement to boast about much when its own merits contributed so little.

787 will only be profitable after selling 1000 aircraft. Russia is not stupid to take this kind of risk with IL-476 which is not even necessary. As I mentioned like C-130 there will be no competitor to IL-476.

Proof (not that any more was needed) that your mathematical abilities are pathetic. How is 60 50% more than 50? Or 6200 50% more than 4600?

Your comparing 2007 model TD-90. I am comparing it to original mid 70s IL-76. The gap between IL-476 and 1970s IL-76 is far more than gap between 737-NG and 737-200. And it was covered in 6 years.

Well, what Russian engine was there that could have been used instead? The AL-55 came too late and isn’t strong enough, so a version with sufficient thrust would have taken even longer to become available. RD-1700? Appears to have faltered for whatever reason and would therefore also not be at hand within an acceptable time.

So Russia was cooperating on Yak-130 engines but it was not cooperating on An-70 because An-70 is more military product?. Make a clear choice
See 2007 MAK-2007 show and followup. They were even invited to MTA project.

http://www.russia-now.info/russia/business/maks_2007_putin_gets_millions_of_dollars_worth_of_contracts_but_no_ice_cream_4.html
The newly-created Russian state holding company, United Aviation Corporation, of which Sukhoi is a member, concluded a framework agreement with Ukrainian state-owned “Ukrainian Aviation” on their joint development of passenger and cargo planes. First Russian deputy prime minister Sergei Ivanov and Ukrainian prime minister Viktor Yanukovych were present at signing

http://en.take-off.ru/pdf_to/to08.pdf
Being more specific on the MoU,
Ilyushin’s Director General/Designer
General Victor Livanov, dual-hatted
as the head of UAC’s Transport and
Special Aircraft Division, told at a
news conference in Kiev that, as far
as cargo ramp aircraft are concerned,
the parties were intent on joint promotion
of the An-124, Il-76, An-70, MTA,
Il-112 and An-74 freighters on the
markets, including the Russian one.
In this context, the Ukrainians were
invited to join the MTA programme,
and the Russians indicated their willingness
to reconsider their stance on
the An-70 programme.

LOL! So if 70% of the aircraft is new (it isn’t!) how can its operating cost be so well known? They certainly seem to have massively misjudged the scope of development work. And it is NOT like going from the 737-300 to the -900, the latter received a fuselage stretch and a completely new wing.

Sukhoi superjet is 100% new. IL-476 is being built under guidance of more capable team that will ensure the highest standard o reliability and sustainability. Stretch fuselage is not a big deal. they can put several ton antenna for AWACS with all reliability and aerodynamic testing.

No they could not, as they would have required Russian cooperation to do so. Cooperation that Russia had no reason to provide when that would just result in a major competitor to its own Il-76.

An-70 competitor to IL-476 is only in ur mind just like An-148 is competitor to Superjet.

Ok, if they wanted the planes so early the An-70 was even less of an option, simply due to time frame. Take your pick, either way the Il-76 was the only realistic option for China and their choice therefore says nothing about the qualities of the An-70.

Time frame? I can show u statements long before 2006 that says completition of An-70 is just around corner. An-70 project lacks credibility infront of prospective customers. This thing does not have that much range. Its all paper specification. Its cruising speed is 15% less than IL-476.
http://www.antonov.com/aircraft/transport-aircraft/an-70

So there were dozens of left-over, almost complete An-70 airframes laying around that could be completed on the cheap? News to me.

. Each one cost $50m for cargo airlines. And these are 5 or 6 year old prices. If they cannot built An-70 at $50m on Ukraine wages 6 years ago its price is going to rise above $150m on Russian labor rates.

I thought 70% of the Il-476 was supposed to be new, so how can its real life performance be known so much more accurately than the An-70’s, an aircraft which has been flying for 18 years?

IL-476 is created digitally from the start. 99% of its specifications can reasonably predicted by computer models.

If the difference between MTOW and OEW is larger, it can carry more fuel at the same payload weight and may then have longer range despite higher fuel consumption.

Your making assumptions. A400m is closer to 77 tons empty. IL-476 cannot be less than 95 tons. And it is till capable of carrying 52 tons to 5000km at 210 MTOW.

The 707 and E-2 are (at least today) only used in niche roles for which a bespoke development would not be economically viable and even then the 707 is being rapidly replaced by 737NG and 767 derivatives. Meanwhile the P-8 airframe has been far more extensively upgraded over the original 1960s 737 than the Il-476 (new wings) and the C-130 – as stated – owes its continued existence almost entirely to a monopoly.

Niche roles? They are the primary component of there intended tasks. Both 737NG and 767 fuselage width hasn’t been changed that much and neither is C-130 that much.
IL-476 is also extensively upgraded compared to 1960s. 50% more payload. 50% more range on equal 40 ton payload, 50% more life cycle time. Full glass cockpit, digital flight controls, 15% more cruising speed. Dramatic improvement to engine reliability.

http://www.avid.ru/pr/news/1546/
To date, “PMZ” serially produced 64 PS-90A-76, which operate on the wing Il-76TD-90, Il-76MF, the A-50 aircraft (airborne warning and control on the basis of IL-76) in airlines four countries (Russia, Azerbaijan, India and Jordan.) During this time, the engine in practice confirmed its high performance. The total operating time of the PS-90A-76 came close to 160 thousand hours. Leader engine as of October 1, 2012 has turned out more than 9,500 hours (2,601 flight cycles) without repair.

See below – it never lost Russian state support, likely because it is not a military aircraft and therefore an acceptable way of propping up Russian suppliers that were usurped by foreign subcontractors on the SSJ. For once you are onto something though – rather than axing the An-70 it is the An-148 that should have been killed!

Ok. Now it comes to Civil and Military aircraft. So what is L-15 & Yak-130 whose engine development continued as joint project.

Are you really that dense or just in denial? You’ve asked this nonsensical question before, and even received an answer! But I’ll humour you: compared to the schedule originally laid out for it – according to which the Il-476 should have entered service this year, rather than barely making it into the air!

So compared to original which other project is not late that is so extensively modified that 70% of aircraft is new. It is like jumping from 737-300 to 737-900 in less than 6 years.
http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-795401-1-1.html

No, they could not, because 70% of the An-70 is of Russian origin, so once Russia had decided to withdraw support it was effectively dead – especially since there was now an interest in promoting the wholly Russian Il-76 instead. China realised that and went for the only aircraft that seemed to be a realistic option – or so they thought, because it then turned out TAPO was in tatters.

Russia only withdraw state order. It does not mean it prevented the whole supply chain from not working on it. Any one with sufficient money could have finished it. How can China realized in 2005 that An-70 is not going to happen. As negotiation of IL-76 started some where in 2001.

This was a civilian project and never lost Russian state support (though again arguably it should have!), so uncertainty was not a problem. As stated my guess is that they wanted to prop up the large number of Russian subcontractors, since on Russia’s own SSJ many of them were replaced by international suppliers.

Civillian-Military is new thing you started. Does L-15/Yak-130 engines civilian or military? And why they continued.

Because private airlines simply do not order such special purpose aircraft in 100s, full stop. At the time, with state support all but completely lost, Antonov would even have had to ask potential airline customers to cover the remaining development costs which makes the whole idea a non-starter.

See above. Russia would have refused to cooperate in an effort to secure market share for their own Il-(4)76, and with 70% of the An-70 being Russian (including crucial items such as the engine props and gearbox) that would have been that.

Civlian airlines finished left over IL-76 at TAPO. No one stopping them from utilizing some thing.

Wow, 8! Funny, going by your arguments they should be operating 100s of them. Once more you are using arguments that work at least equally well against the Il-476 – if it is so good, why has no civilian airline ordered huge numbers (in fact there isn’t a single confirmed civilian order to date!)? Why have China and India not ordered 100s of them, even though there (unfortunately) is little doubt about Russian state support for it?

IL-476 has set orders in sequence. And every one else has to wait. See my previous link.

I can guarantee they would lease An-70s even more happily, since unlike the Il-476 it is capable of performing any mission the A400M could. There was actually a quote somewhere from a Volga-Dnepr representative to that effect, where he strongly suggested A400M operators would be considered prime customers for An-70 charters.

They are not going to lease an unreliable aircraft with un known real life performance.

Because it carries a lot more fuel – only 10 to 15 of the 50 ton increase in MTOW are due to higher empty weight.

How u know it caries a lot more fuel. It has 210 MTOW. And produced 5000km range with 52 tons weight. 195 ton MTOW current version produce 4600km range with 50 tons payload.

LMAO! The sheer audacity of that statement, coming from you, of all people!

stay tune.

Yeah, that’s why we’re all still flying P-51s and C-47… wait, what?!

see B707, C-130, P-8 (based on 737), E-2D,. these started from 1950s/60. I am not going into high speed and high altitude fighter concept like MIG-25/31.

Because it is deliberately sized to be smaller than the An-70 (the need for such an aircraft in the VVS is questionable IMHO, but fair enough), so that’s fine. In fact, it is trying to be to the C-130 with its smaller cross section what the An-70 is to the Il-476, which is fundamentally the right way to approach the market. It’s just that between the very successful C-130 and the more aggressively scheduled KC-390 I think said market is a bit too competitive for a late-comer like the MTA. Unlike the Il-476 it looks to be a sensible, sound design on paper though, so maybe it’ll manage to establish a presence nonetheless.

Its twin engine with higher elevation in mind (3300m) along with higher speed. And achive maximum commonality with IL-470 upgrades.
KC-390 is failed project from the start. I don’t want to explain at this point why it will fail.

Perversely, the Il-476 might turn out to be a bigger success if the An-70 does not survive (or is artificially held back), since that would leave it with very little competition. C-17 production will end at some point, and the A400M could indeed turn out to be more expensive, so like the C-130J (which saw success only because it had a virtual monopoly for 10 years) it might sell decently, through no achievement of its own.

Whether An-70 survive or not it will have no impact on IL-476/MRTA. The only way An-70 can reasonably be successful if it use twin engine higher thrust version of PD-14 engine like in 18 ton class. This will give it 40 ton airlift ability at much more efficiency, mobility, reliability and sustainability.

I would be careful about goading me back into that argument, I merely stopped replying because your answers were so weak that they did not even bear putting right. Hint: the Orange Revolution started some 9 months before MAKS 2005 (in late 2004), so Antonov was already persona non grata at the time.

So now blame Orange revolution for An-70 absence from MAKS-2005. So why the rest of Antonov products present. They did not removed the An-148 competitor to Superjet in the show.

http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=469
The competing Antonov 148 regional plane made its public debut at MAKS and scored several orders.

Not in absolute terms, but relatively speaking it would be a miracle if the Il-476 was cheaper, given the way the project was executed and the substantial delays it has already suffered. And again, thanks to its high operating cost and mediocre performance it would have to be noticeably less expensive (as the Il-76MDM upgrade actually is!) to make sense.

Substantional delays compared to what?
IL-476 is already cheaper. Its operating costs and sustainability is known.

Yup, because the one customer who could order enough for it to become profitable for the manufacturer keeps changing his mind. Do you seriously think the Il-476 would exist without a Russian air force order?

Modernized 50 tons version already exist without Ruaf orders in private carriers. Infact Chinese put large order before even Ruaf thought about giving IL-76 new life. China could have funded An-70 at that time just like L-15 trainer.

LOL! Do you think Antonov could commit to building infrastructure for full-rate production based on a handful of airframes? Look where that got the Il-96 (although with more astute management its fate could have been rather different). Nobody can afford to launch an aircraft on just 5 or 10 orders, so when the key customer cannot be depended on to honour his commitments the project languishes.

Antonov finished An-148 in uncertain time. And if An-70 so good. Why not private airlines order it in 100s or India/China or any one else join it.

Once Silkway firmly orders 40+ An-70s we can talk. Maybe they aren’t as loaded as you make them out to be after all?

They are not going to do that. infact one of IL-76-90 of Silkairway crashed. otherwise they would have 8 IL-76 new.

It is less of a paper aircraft than the Il-476… pretty funny how almost every point you bring up against the An-70 argues at least as strongly against the very aircraft that you are so desperate to defend. UAC should compensate you for the permanent humiliation.

It is a lot more credible project but I don’t think you will ever get it as you don’t know basics.

Just imagine how much money could have been saved buying 476 instead of the A400.

A400 projects started at time when EU has money. Now they are signing outsourcing contracts in South Africa and Malaysia to make A400 cheaper but it wont help. The supply chian is already expensive.
EU will still lease IL-476 from private cargo airlines anyway similar to An-124.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50106.htm
Strategic Airlift Interim Solution (SALIS)

Even if we accept this ludicrous and patently false statement for argument’s sake, late 1970s would undeniably still be better and more up to date than 1960s…

“The An-70 is too old – I know! Let’s go for something even older!” :rolleyes:

As always, your so-called ‘opinion’ isn’t fully thought through, and that’s the kindest way of putting it.

Nope. Atleast I don’t make alternative realty. 1960 specification are deemed better as they had much longer life to test. See the new MTA it has the same x-section as IL-476 but it has almost 40% better TWR than C-130J. mobility is more important than x-section.
I have predicted that IL-476 will have positive impact on MTA and it did.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121012/DEFREG03/310120005/India-Russia-Take-Step-Toward-Transport-Aircraft-Design?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Its good that you dropped the political angle. An-70 was absent in MAKS 2005. It means the decision was made earlier than 2006. That you repeadtly claimed until this point.

Indeed, and it goes to show very well what a substandard effort the Il-476 is, it manages to miss a gap that is amply big enough because it is too expensive for what mediocre performance it can offer. It should have been a fairly simple job to design an aircraft that complements the Antonovs well and yet they failed miserably, that’s precisely my point.

Too expensive compared to what?. Do you even know the price of KC-390/A400M/An-70?.
It is as fast & long range as the newest C-17 on same fuel and that even without PD-14 engines.

Exactly – kill the Il-476 and give at least part of the money to Antonov, since theirs is the better aircraft. Thanks for making my point, this is what I’ve been saying all along!

Yes better aircraft that no one is ordering it.

Of course, since commitment by far and away the most important customer (the Russian air force) has been so unreliable and erratic in the past, nobody will seriously consider it until they are certain that the VVS will keep word. Nothing at all surprising about this, you are simply confusing cause and effect.

These airlines were buying IL-76 when Ruaf were not buying new transports. They are not going to be influenced by any airforce

The difference is about 10% – not even close to being worth the fuel burn penalty. And why the hell would that prevent it from complementing the An-124 anyway? Are you expecting them to fly formation aerobatics, or something?

It’s a paper specification. Who knows the engines/airframe may not even last at higher speeds for too long. There is simply not much investment in engines compared to PS-90.

I think your overestimating China importance. China does not have technology, resources, and geographical location to impact Russia.
China can boycott Japanese products but it cannot boycott Russia. Infact it is Russia shielding China from democracy (aka arab spring) by creating this middleast confrontation so every one is absorb in it.

see this example of L-15 engine. it was designed with Russian participation. There is practically nothing in Ukraine without Russian input. The whole eastern industrialized part is russian speaking.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ivchenko-progress-to-start-supplying-engines-for-l-36796.html
Ivchenko-Progress to start supplying engines for L-15 aircraft to China in March

The new engine was developed jointly with Russian designers authorized to carry out work of this kind.

Superficially it may seem that way, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that points toward the Il-476 being politically driven if you place both in proper context – I’m NOT basing my argument on mere existence. Timing of the project alone is a big red flag – why did the VVS only come round to the realisation that it needed the Il-476 in 2006, a date that is readily associated with a souring of Russo-Ukrainian relations and 12 years after the An-70? Why, moreover, did they make a serious attempt to outright kill the An-70 project by withdrawing, when their later about-face on this decision shows that the military requirement for it never actually went away?

There is zero circumstantial evidence. decision in 2006 was based after the collapse of China IL-76 deal. TAPO plant was deemed unfit for supporting large scale new IL-76. Infact Russia does not need to wait untill 2006 to throw An-70. It could have done it in 2004 which they did. Your simply ignoring the fact that more than 300 PS-90 engine in operation and more than 500 on order. There is not much investment in An-70 engines.
see this one from MAKS-2005. Every other Antonov was present except An-70.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-145835808.html
one notable absentee was the Ukrainian An-70 medium military transport airplane, missing at the show for the first time since its creation. It indicates that Russia is dropping plans to purchase this airplane. An order from China remains the only, slim chance for the An-70.

Consider the genesis of the Il-476 against this background, and the impression is inescapable that the needs of the end user took a back seat to political motives, whereas the An-70 is the result of an undiluted military specification.

undiluted military specifications of late 1970s just like A400M.

I don’t doubt it had a requirement tailor-written and that the VVS will be able to put it to some good use – the question is, can that requirement be pressing enough to warrant the considerable additional expense? You don’t need secret information to note that the niche between the An-70 and An-124 is paper-thin for an aircraft with the known performance and likely cost of the Il-476. So thin as to make it highly improbable that it could ever be a cost-effective solution, even based on public brochure info it lags behind too badly for it to be a credible complement to the other two.

There is big nich between An-124 and An-70. Almost three niches.

Specious reasoning – if you ask one side to supply a justification you must be prepared to substantiate your own argument as well. You may consider my reasoning weak (although I will once more remind you to recognise that I am considering additional context, beyond mere existence), but a weak justification is better than no justification.

ur reasoning is extremely weak. I have seen reports that Russia ministry is till negotiating not signing for first two aircraft. let alone large batch. and Antonov is not happy with state of funding. and without massive funding it will always remain an unreliable junk.

In the most fundamental sense, transport aircraft are all about generating maximum payload/range for minimum cost – that is ALWAYS the essence it boils down to no matter how complex the full spec may be. It really is not rocket science to figure out that the An-70 does that a lot better for most missions, without having to resort to classified data.

Does An-70 has demonstrated its flight hrs, turn around time and support structure that exist for IL-76 and its engines. Ur throwing decades of investment. Not even wealthy (Azerbaijan Silkairways) state backed transport company will touch An-70.

http://www.avid.ru/eng/pr/news/1518/
Today PS-90A engine modular replacement sites in Ulyanovsk, Baku (Azerbaijan), Havana (Cuba) have been prepared for certification. In October, 2012 another one site will be set in one more Russian city – Vladivostok, at the base of “Vladivostok-Avia” airline. An agreement has been confirmed to build such sites in Moscow (to serve the engines of “Red Wings” airline aircrafts) and in Agra-city (India).

Frankly, I sense that you are hiding behind this demand for information which you full well know is impossible to supply because it conveniently allows you to avoid conceding the point. Again though, ALL transport aircraft are subject to certain basic considerations, and the An-70 (if teamed with the An-124) plainly fulfils them so much better that there is hardly any scope for the Il-476 to exist on its own merit.

An-70 cannot be teamed up with An-124. An-70 is too slow, too short range and too unreliable for 21st century.

And that’s before we get started on how the Il-476, by dint of a comparatively unimportant commonality advantage, is establishing itself in the tanker and AEW roles over alternatives that would again be far superior.

There is no alternative. No company is prepared to risk another large aerodynamic structure and put AESA antenna over top of it. It took 5 years for A-50EI tests. after all that previous experiance.