What proportion of life time cost is the purchase price? Ask any airline. The military have different ratios, but they’re still very, very interested in operating costs.

And that’s before we even start thinking about what loads will actually fit inside it.

There is no point in adding loads when you dont have the required range. most of fuel is consumed in takeoff. short range and low speed aircraft will always be in disadvantage for turn around times.
see this example. they bought 5 new and will add another 15.

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/presscentre/releases/?id=5833
Fifth IL-76td-90vd freighter joins Volga-Dnepr airlines’ fleet
Volga-Dnepr is the only carrier in the world operating a fleet of five brand new IL-76TD-90VD freighters.

Il-476 is a political project. An-70 is what the Soviet armed forces wanted, because of the deficiencies of the Il-76. After the fall of the USSR, the Russian armed forces still thought those reasons valid, but instead of completing the An-70, all the military analyses were thrown out of the window by politicians, together with the cost & market analyses, & the Il-476 project begun, to spite the Ukrainians.

This is the same nonsense of political project written again & again just like Chinese IL-76 clone is just about ready and will outperform in reliability/flight hrs/performance the IL-476.
Now seriously believe that private sector (no one has stopped them fron not investing in it) cannot find enough funds to complete An-70 when they can find alot more for An-124 modernization?.
Either An-70 requires alot more money to complete. ( last i read $400m just assembly line at Kazan alone) or it is simply not viable.

http://www.aircargoworld.com/Air-Cargo-News/2011/09/is-the-born-again-an-124-ready-for-reconstruction/272278
He confirms that the agreement with Antonov will require Volga to commit $400 million to the further deep modernization of its entire AN-124-100 fleet, a program expected to take four years to complete. “It is planned that the upgrade of each aircraft will take six to eight months, with only one aircraft being taken out of service at a time,” Gabriel said.

The investment by Volga-Dnepr will also help fund a major research and development program, which will be undertaken simultaneously. This, it is said, will act as the catalyst for ultimately relaunching serial production of a new-build AN-124-300 freighter. “The modernization of the AN-124-100 fleet and upgrade of the D-18T engine will provide the platform for production relaunch,” Gabriel said. “We hope that will happen in 2016.”

Volga-Dnepr Group’s ebullient president, Alexey Isaikin, has already stated that he is ready to order up to 40 of the new-build AN-124-300s, based on the strategic requirements for oversize and heavy-cargo transportation. It is a market segment, according to company estimates, that is growing at a rate of 10 percent to 12 percent per year in cash terms. That means it will be valued at $3 billion by 2020 and $7 billion by 2030. Currently, Russian operators, with their monopoly of AN-124-100 lift, retain a 75-percent market share.

Would you like to compare EADS turnover and profits with Aviastar’s?:confused:

Aviastar is just beginning in transport aviation. i am sure it will be profitable as it will produce 3 or 4 types of transport planes at same place.
EADS sales and investments are supported by EU banks just like EU real estate firms untill recently. risk is taken by banks while profit is by firm.

You must be a clairvoyant – a load of crystal balls…:rolleyes:

when you create a unique project with no follow up version with complex industrial chain even for engines. its bound to fail unless it has A-320 likes sales. where is twin engine called AN200m?
see below example. components are supplied to a Belgian firm and than inturns supply to Safron. behind every EU product this complexity involved. so less employment but more money spread round. with expensive end product as too many firms/subsidiaries/joint ventures has to make a profit.

http://www.rusbiznews.com/news/n1420.html
VSMPO will help create a new generation of engines

JangBoGo, I know that you are somewhat of a fan of Russian equipment in general and extremely knowledgeable overall, but I find it nothing but annoying when Indian defence jingos toss around conspiracy theories to explain delays in development programs, especially (their favourite target) aimed at ‘Unkil’, , ‘lifafa’ journalists and evil greedy private sector cos.

The fact is, the MTA program is still at the negotiation stage. If the Russians wanted to develop it they could have started it on their own while negotiating like they did with the PAK FA. Reports from bharat rakshak suggest that the cause is HAL’s dissatisfaction with low workshares offered(and I suppose you can account for the usual red tape and bureacracy as well for the delay). Nothing on bribes but rumour mills. Heck, the idea of Tata and Lockheed businessmen visiting UAC and HAL personnel and bribing them for every negotiation is patently ridiculous! And all because some Lockheed Martin thought about the possibility of building C-130s in India?!(And mind you, there are no negotiations or even offers to the effect, just a wish)

HAL and UAC negotiations have no bearing on MTA project. so it is not fact at this point that project is stalled on negotiation. MTA will not fly before PD-14 engine is certified. This $600m figure is from 1999.

KC-390 programe cost is $1.5b. with already developed subsystem.
http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso,defesa-salva-de-cortes-plano-de-aviao-cargueiro,761590,0.htm

The radar equation shows that the maximum range of a radar is reduced by reductions in target RCS. So the range of an S-300 will depend of the RCS of the target it is trying to engage.

Your range figure of 200 km for the S-300PMU2 is a bit questionable. The maximum I’ve seen reliably quoted is 150 km using the 48N6 missile.

Reliably quoted. may be ur confusing a late 1980s missile. 200km engagement range against aerodynamic targets is right on products page.
http://www.almaz-antey.ru/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/

That’s true, but these countries still have a limited choice of long-range SAM – S-300, its Chinese equivalent, or nothing.

The S-300 sales record shows little evidence that the system is considered better than its Western equivalents.

Better than the PMU and earlier variants, no doubt, but that sales record suggests that Patriot may be a better choice.

I never considered sales record or give away to CIS countries as a proof success.

BTW, I’ve seen the Buk seeker – it is definitely an earlier-generation technology. The same can be said for all the Russian radar seekers that have been shown at defence exhibitions. So I would doubt whether the S-300 seeker is any better.

yup defense exhibition is the correct place to see the technology. there is layers of technical levels even among customers.

Naval SAMs have not had a lot of chances to display their intercept capability, but to date have managed to account for:

1 Styx-class missile
3 MiG fighters
1 Dagger
4 A-4 Skyhawk
1 Canberra B62

very obsolete things without any modern counter measures.

What penalty does this higher speed impose on a supersonic missile’s ability to pull a demanding terminal manoeuvre? The feeling in the West is that a subsonic missile offers a better end-game capability. The manoeuvre flown by later-model Exocets is pretty brutal – it made my jaw drop when I saw it!

A fascinating discussion, but it must give way to higher priorities, such as gathering together my passport, air ticket, foreign currency, camera, and guidebook, then packing a suitcase. For the next 12 days, I will ignore missiles, stealth, electronics and the like and revel in the art and architecture of the Quattrocento.

so every things comes feeling now. see India example. It started a modest project of Brahmos in late 1990s with $600m development over the top of whatever was Onyx at that time. Now this thing may well have order portfolio may well be $10b. and on top of that very expensive upgrade to Su-30 class fighter so it can carry Brahmos. The amount of money invested shows incredible degree of confidence in the system.
Now you have Exocet/Aster. That no one is willing to invest in upgrades. only paper publishes that some thing will happen in 2020 for block 2 upgrade.

The point of having a low RCS is to deny a SAM system the ability to engage at long range.

its SAM radar power that makes it engage at longer ranges. S300PMU2 has 3 times the range against fighter class target. and at engage at higher altitudes of 27km against 20km for Aster. Even Buk-M2 can do at 25km.

I was a bit puzzled that you chose Aster as a comparison to the S-300. would have used Patriot.

you brought it up. I merely mentioned there is no money to Aster project on scale of S300. Only product in EU can succeed which has foreign sales on large scale.

S-300 sales have been made to more than a dozen countries, but I suspect that most of these sales reflect political reality rather than system performance. These countries would never have been considered as potential Patriot or Aster users. The sole exception is Greece, but it acquired its S-300 systems by taking over hardware originally ordered by Cyprus

Countries have fixed budgets if they found S300 ineffective they would have spent it on combat aircraft.

Will we see more advanced S-300 variant? Although a S-300PMU3 variant has been reported, little is known about it. It could be a S-300PMU2 modified to fire the 9M96, 9M96E or 9M96E2 missiles, but some observers believe that S-300PMU3 may simply have been the original designation for what became the S-400.

S300PMU2 is already better and it is 16 year old technology. export cleared to China in 2001.

Naval SAM designers were dealing with the ‘high-diver’ class of threat since the 1970s, so this would have formed part of the Aster requirements. The timing of the supersonic engagement I referred to was probably dictated by the lack of a suitable target drone earlier in the programme.

And complex terminal manoeuvres are a feature of most modern anti-ship missiles.

Naval sams in 1970s have very little intercept ability. complex terminal maneouvers with steep dive at higher speeds is new thing that only Brahmos has demonstrated and probably Club.

The latest Kh-31 variants have a stretched fuselage to carry more fuel and extend the range. They also have improved guidance. But the speed in unchanged, so the earlier seekerless model will still be a threat-representative target.

you cannot improve speed unless the material/propulsion are fundamentally changed. Aster 30 performance will remian the same for long time. while newer antiship will come online. Just the investment in Anti-ship missiles is far more than investment in Aster-30. its technological dead end.
Even India is not investing in improving Aster-30 but investing in Brahmos-2.

I cannot speak for Buk M2, but the earlier version seems to have had a less-than-stellar performance, and is badly affected by jamming. Finland was quite disillusioned by the system. It acquired its Buks in 1996 and although Almaz-Antey offered Finland an upgrade several years ago (presumably based on Buk M2 technology), that country plans to begin phasing out the system in 2015.

Some thing acquired in 1996 does not mean its 1996 technology. It could be late 1970s technology.

It is over-simplistic to say that because missile X has a maximum range of 100 km and missile Y has a maximum range of only 50 km, missile X is the better system.

200km engagement range against fighter target missile has alot more energy and radar engagement range will be multiple of it there is better chance of hitting low rcs target.
than there is money issue. $15b to $20b worth of S300 exported. and if u convert Russian orders into export prices. that is another $150b worth of orders. So there is alot more refinement in the system.
The whole US-Russia reset depends on not selling S300 to certain countries. even WTO rules are bended for it. Aster 30 at most is Buk-M2/M3 class. and with lack of money it will always remain a modest system.

Aster was designed to be capable of defeating missiles manoeuvring at up to 15 g with speeds of M2.5 or more. In April 2012 it successfully intercepted a Coyote supersonic sea skimming target using an Aster 30 missile. Coyote can fly at speeds of up to Mach 2.5 at heights of less than 5 m.

Aster was never designed for supersonic missile sytems. thats why it took 2 decades to achieve that capability. infact Brahmos is Mach 2.8 class system.
complex multi point maneouvers with steep dive test.
http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.ph

I’m not sure how useful it is to compare a ship such as FREMM to a SAM system! But let us assume that by FREMM you meant the Aster SAM system.

In trials, Aster has scored an impressive series of body-to-body strikes against targets. These successes have been publicly documented. Can the same be said for a “wonder weopon like S300”?

A statement that “FREMM is sitting duck in front of Yakhont system” has no value unless you can cite evidence, such as the results of test firings or modelling/simulation. Otherwise we are in the realm of “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

S300PMU2 is true area defense system with 200km. Aster against fighter size target is only 70km. They are not simply comparable.
FREMM has never been tested against Yakhont class system. Just the order book of Yakhont class system against FREMM tell some thing. Yakhont is going to be installed not only ground, ship but airlunch version now. as its fool proof.
Infact S300 was considered for KSA before this syria crises. S300 has much higher reputation than anything in this class. and Russia has used that for its advantage in alot of different ways.