JSRThe An-148 is civilian, so Ukrainian NATO ambitions were not a problem. Russia is not THAT stupid – by pretty much embargoing Antonov’s complete product range they’d kill off dozens of Russian subcontractors.
Ok so MI-17/Yak-130 are also civilian. These are far more important than some non existent transport.
The basic AL-55 has nowhere near enough thrust for the Yak-130, that would have taken more development time. So if the Russian air force wanted Yak-130s when they got them, there was no way they could be powered by anything else.
You don’t need billions to scale up and down a trainer engine.
So do you think Boeing Russia is working on the F-15SE?
Russia does not need F-15E. It will be more than happy to work with Boeing on next transport. It is about competence and money. And build influence. An-70 is too small a project to make difference to Ukraine.
http://en.rian.ru/business/20100611/159386299.html
The Kommersant newspaper cited Alexei Fyodorov, head of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation, as saying that Russia had proposed the joint production of the plane to the U.S. government and the White House had been discussing the issue with Boeing.
There were more than 40 left by the end of 1990 (which would probably have run its course normally)? The production drop did happen, but actually in 1994, rather than in 1990 (look at the bar charts!)? They really did build 10 additional airframes from scratch, as claimed by Wikipedia (half an airframe per year is hardly a rate to boast about, though – the Il-96 did better than that)? All of the above?
Your constantly moving goal post. First claiming 40 airframes left in 1990 and than 16 in 2006. I am not sure why you keep believeing on those numbers. Look at the production numbers between 1991-2011.
I’m not actually that interested in exactly how many spare airframes were left at which precise point in time. My main contention is that many if not most Il-76s manufactured in the past 15 to 20 years were only assembled from stored components, and multiple sources say TAPO may have lost the ability to build from scratch altogether at some point.
It is not possible to have such big production run from stored components. Not to mention huge amount of data collected from various AWACS platforms.
And I have never disputed that number, it matches manufacturer claims anyway – the problem is that from this figure one cannot conclude what you are trying to claim.
50 tons to 4600km (195Ton MTOW) is pretty decent compared to paper specification of 47ton to 3000km (145ton MTOW) for An-70.Claimed Cruise speed is 750km/h. (I belive the acceleration will be like a diesel engine not a gasoline engine). which is less than 850km/h for IL-476. An-70 adds time and is not multifunction (AWACS/Tanker/Transport) and no commonality with upcoming MTA. These all negatives.
That’s why they aren’t claiming their data to be representative of the Il-476 – UAC is. They should know, don’t you think? Volga-Dnepr’s specs are irrelevant, I only ever discussed them because you used them to prove a point that they did not support at all.
UAC hasn’t put final specification of IL-476. All we know at this point is it will be in 60ton class and more efficient compared to previous one. Even 10% efficiency increase will make An-70 redundant.
JSRROFL!!! 😀
it is indians themselves who said that during the kargil crisis, in reliability and support domain, its M2k fleet was way above anything else they had in their inventory (there was alink in one of the MMRCA threads from late january or something like that)
Kargil crises is not thousands of sorties with not so sophisticated airdefence. and M2K was at best competing with unupgraded MIG-27 for droping bombs.
See when Su-30 start entering service in large numbers. India basically lost interest in further M2K orders. They are now looking to twin engine fighters.
As i said give it 10 more years and M2K fleet avg will be worse than MIG-21.
JSREr… I think you might be under an erroneous impression as to the timing of the Orange Revolution, better research before shooting your mouth off next time!
Orange Revolution: Early 2005
Russian withdrawal from An-70: Early 2006
Launch of Il-476 project: Late 2006
Resumption of funding by Russia: Mid 2009 (as per your own link)
Now ur blaming Orange revolution for An-70 failure. when there is no relationship. Read and understand the issue first.
In 2006 the plane was ready for certification(or do u think former PM and which is now Current President is lieing about An-70 status). but Russians withdrew from it because the have no confidence in the plane.
See An-148 example despite being in same size as Superjet it continued but An-70 that is vastly inferior and required very small amount of money got abandoned.
http://en.for-ua.com/news/2006/08/16/151539.html
Ukraine offers Russia to return to joint project of AN-70 transport planePrime Minister Viktor Yanukovych told journalists in Sochi that he once again offered Russia to return to the project of the military transport plane AN-70. As the Premier noted, presently, the plane is 98 percent ready. Its certification may finally complete in 2007 and the plane already has several customers in the world, Cabinet’s press office informed.
Ukraine and Russia started the project of creating the plane more than 10 years ago, but it has not been completed yet. Over the recent years Russian military representatives, who were the main customers of the plane, several times stated their discontents about the project. In July 2006 Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov announced Russia’s withdrawal from the project, but top-most officials of Russia have not passed a final resolution on the issue yet. The share of Russia’s liability under the project amounts to 47 mln USD.
Viktor Yanukovych told journalists that he and his Russian counterpart Mikhail Fradkov also discussed likely joint development of a project of a passenger jet plane AN-148. “An integration project with the Voronezh Aviation Works is quite promising. The plane has potential customers,” Yanukovych said, having added that politics must not hamper development of economic Ukrainian – Russian relations.
Allowing for some bureaucratic inertia in the decision making, the connection is pretty obvious – as is the fact that the resumption of funding did not coincide with the Orange Revolution, as you seem to imply. Far from it in fact, by that time the writing was on the wall regarding the failure of the Oranges.
surely conneciton is pretty obvious. thats why An-148 got completed and AL-55 is not powering Yak-130. Ur simply not admitting that politics has nothing to do with it. It as the IAF choice of A-50EI AWACS and subsequent lunch of Ruaf AWACS project and Volga-Denpr funding for IL-76 modernization project that tip the scale in favor IL-476 not to mention Chinese interest. Now IL-476 is in driving seat and An-70 is part of history as small project.
More JSR randomness. What does this have to do with ANYTHING of relevance to the subject here?
It is not random. Politics has nothing to with projects or hiring qualified people no matter what nationality. See Boeing projects.
Repeating points which fly in the face of established facts over and over will not make them right, it will only make you look an idiot. All of this has been addressed already.
facts are pretty clear. There cannot be 16 Fuselege left in 2006 when in 1990 there were 40. Think harder you will get the answer.
http://russianplanes.net/EN/REGISTR/Ilushin/Il-76/78/A-50
You cannot deny 50 tons and 4600km range with 195 MTOW on Volga website. as it is customer specification not manufacture claims.
Volga Denpr site cannot make claim regarding IL-476 as they have no data. Only claim is IL-76 TD-90 is 21% more efficient.
Dont try to extrapolate to IL-476 and that is completely separate project with 6 year effort behind it.
JSRReliability of Mirages are no bette than MIG-21. once it reaches MIG-21 age. the crash rate is surely going to go up. India does not send those Mirages outside India not often.
MIG-21Bison is now more modern than M2K in IAF fleet. MIG-21 can operate R-77/R-73 and has rcs reduced.
JSRNice try – I was talking about the engines ONLY there. That mod is NOT extensive.
See Beriv A-50U upgrades. When it was delivered to test flights and when it was accepted in service.
Source? I’ve given mine, don’t just start talking out of your posterior again.
Your basically relying on unreliable data. My source is Saturn commercial director from 2002.
The Chinese AWACS was/is with fitted D-30 engines. Again, you are deflecting, your point was originally about the engine mod, I responded and proved that it isn’t extensive and now you’ve moved the goal posts. Nobody is fooled.
It still needs more than 3 years to deliver the product. Your underestimating the amount of aerodynamic work required for larger antenna.
TAPO is not in Russia.
80% of components comes from Russia and with higher transportation charges and still Russian workers. The cost of project ballooned. I have all the information. You don’t.
Find me a source which says so, in plain English, not misinterpreted JSR-speak, like that last one you tried. I’ve given you a payload/range diagram ages ago which indisputably says you are wrong, you’re gonna have to try a lot harder to beat that.
Every thing is on Volga website. With 50 tons load and 195 ton MTOW. The range of TD-90 is 4600km.
D-30K2 powered with 48ton load is 3800km. this is 21% improvement.
The range of paper specification An-70 with 47ton load is 3000km.
The Il-96 and An-70 have been flying for around 20 years, their specifications ARE validated data. OTOH, the Il-476 has only paper specifications available, so I guess we should dismiss it completely.
IL-476 vast improvement over IL-76. So its specification are subject to continuous improvement.
Yes, I know as well as is possible at this stage that the Il-476 is a lemon. I have not proven wrong, least of all by you with your preposterous inventions.
Lets wait.
FBW by itself does not improve performance (and both the Il-96 and An-70 are already FBW in any case) and the wing is only new in terms of manufacturing methods – aerodynamically it is unchanged. By making greater use of integral machining the Il-476 has merely caught up to the Il-96 (which has specifically been mentioned as the model for the wing manufacturing process!) and An-70. It is still completely unimpressive.
It is decreasing the weight of aircraft by removing the heavier control/wiring system. And how do you know aerodynamically it is not Changed?. All what is known at this point is that is going to give 15 to 18% improvement over the in service IL-76.
JSRIn other words, much like the Il-76 was before the wholly political decision to penalise Ukraine for the Orange Revolution by creating the Il-476. It’s also not a particularly strong disadvantage – the 707 remained in production for military derivatives long after its commercial shelf-life had ended.
Again now your blaming Orange Revolution?. See what is the date of this resumption of funding.
http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/index.php?id=148&listid=97591
Putin does not have problem of giving multi-million packages to Western CEO and Firms. The largest numbe of expatriates in Moscow are British. Fact of matter is An-70 has become uncompetitive with passage of time.
as UAC has more funds to improve IL-76 and continous improvements to PS-90 engines and future PD-14 engines. Much more investment in modern manufacturing. Greater need of verstaile plane for AWACS/Tanker/Transport. IL-476 should be able to transport the same load as An-70 to twice the distance at much greater speed.
JSRThe point is, if it is economically viable to refit the mods to an existing plane they cannot be particularly extensive, which directly contradicts your conclusions.
They are extensive. That’s why it takes 3 to 4 years to modify IL-76 to make its airframe strengthened for giant AESA antenna and enlaraged engines.
Built from airframes drawn from a pool of 40 incomplete aircraft stored at TAPO, according not to me, but Jane’s. Once again, this is not something I’m making up myself, you can easily google this fact if you want to (which obviously you don’t, since it would expose your argument as nonsense).
There pretty much is no such thing as built from scratch, actually!
Those 40 aircrafts are already sold out in 1990s. China alone got 20 airframes.
It is still trial and error with a structurally different aircraft to the Il-476, and as pointed out above, the engine change is of such minor impact that you can retrofit it. Also, the first Indian A-50 flew in 2007, two years AFTER the first PS-90 powered Il-76TD-90 had been delivered to Volga-Dnepr – that part of the modifications was already done and paid for. So the long wait for India was probably due to turmoil at TAPO and airframe adaptation to the Phalcon radar (See what happens when you change the radar system? And on the Il-476 both the radar AND structure will be different).
The work on Indian AWACS started in 2003 and before that there was Chinese AWACS.
As you can see there is experienced gained with Time.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/missing+the+link-156794/
Author: A. Demin
Aviapanorama, No. 2, 2003, pp. 73-77– A REVIEW OF LONG-RANGE RADIO-LOCATING SURVEILLANCE COMPLEXES CREATED IN THE SOVIET UNION AND RUSSIA
The complex was created on the basis of the A-50. The Russian electronics were replaced with a system created by Eltra Electronics (IAI’s branch) on the basis of the EL/M-205 Phalcon radio-locating station. The new modification of the A-50 aircraft had a new pylon and a bigger radome (11.5 meters in diameter). The radome was motionless. However, it was “stuffed” with three phased arrays, which covered all sectors. The aircraft took off from an airdrome in Taganrog on July 28, 1999. The A-50I (registration number RA-78740) was sent to Israel after fifteen test and seven training flights. However, the Chinese Air Force did not receive the aircraft. Israel was forced to suspend the project owing to strong political pressure from the US. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon official stated in 2001 that Israel would not build such planes for China. As a result, China decided to purchase Russian AWACS planes.
Moscow, 16 January 2000: The contract for the delivery of Russian-Israeli airborne warning and control systems [AWACS] A-50E to China “has been frozen but not cancelled”, Gennadiy Panatov, director-general of the Beriyev scientific and technical aviation complex in Taganrog, said in an exclusive interview with an ITAR-TASS correspondent.
According to Panatov, the A-50E (export version) system was designed by specialists of his complex on the basis of Russia’s Il-76 aircraft. The aircraft was fully modernized in compliance with the requirements of the Israeli side, which is the final supplier under the Chinese contract. In particular, Taganrog specialists designed a new aerial which is 11.5 m in diameter and installed it on the aircraft. This aerial is larger than the one used with the Russian version of the A-50 system
And you know why, because it won’t be built completely from scratch. Once the pool of incomplete airframes at TAPO runs out it’s over (hence the move to Russia), there are about 30 left at this point. Is it any wonder the Chinese 38-strong order could not be fulfilled under these circumstances?
That cannot be fulfilled not due to production rates but Price. There was tremendous surge in wages in Russia since 2006. (See Gorskhov price increase example). Any manpower intensive work like Ship building or long term aircraft building need to be renegotiated.
You’ve already given the reason yourself – potential customers aren’t trusting Russia’s backing of the project. It is doubts about the commitment of the launch customer that makes the difference in this regard, it is patently not a reflection of performance or suitability relative to the Il-476. You are deliberately confusing cause and effect!
As is said there is full back up to IL-96. See cargo transport to China and Presidient administration aircraft. It is just aircraft is not suitable for Airforce. Ruaf/PLAAF/IAF all came to the same conclusion.
I don’t doubt that it will fly eventually and I am NOT refusing to admit the reality that the Il-96 at least has been rejected – I’m just pointing out that, according to an overwhelming body of evidence, this was a STUPID decision. You OTOH are refusing to admit the reality that said proof makes the Il-476 an underperforming aircraft which will hurt the competitiveness of the Russian aircraft industry.
IL-96 is totally rejected and new plane will be designed from ground up. The overhelming evidence is against you as you have to prove the experts wrong who had made there choice in favor of IL-476 for decades to come.
If anybody here is underestimating the magnitude of that effort it is YOU. Talk about a perversion of the facts! The Il-476 will require pretty much the same amount of work to be modified for AEW as the Il-96 – its structure is different from that of the Il-76 in a crucial area and the radar will be different to those already mounted on the A-50.
IL-476 will require a lot work but there is a lot of experience behind modifying that aircraft. So there is a lot of confidence in this aircraft.
Oh yes, they have! You’re just steadfastly ignoring it, as you’d have to drop the frivolous babbling about double-digit efficiency improvements if you acknowledged this fact!
15 to 18% is compared to the D-30 powered basic Il-76, NOT the Il-76TD-90! Again, UAC themselves admit that the Il-476 will perform the same as the latter, and knowing how little they have changed (same aerodynamics, same engines, less than 3% difference in empty weight) this makes complete sense. Where is a 15% improvement over the Il-76TD-90 supposed to come from in that?!
What is 7.2 ton and 9.2 ton burn rate? This is exactly 20% difference. That is without IL-476 modifications. They will be 15 to 18% over the top of it.
http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/charter/fleet/il76/specific/
It is already perfectly competitive (easily beating the Il-476 on fuel burn), hence no such investment is needed.
Provide data. Not paper specification.
No matter what he’s been told, there sure aren’t any results showing. Same kind of BS as the 65 million price tag for the F-35, frankly – he can talk all day, what matter is the result he actually delivers and the Il-476 isn’t even competitive right now, let alone for decades to come.
So you know it isn’t competitive?. See how you have been proven wrong.
An aircraft that will have very little in common with the first version from 1969, completely unlike the Il-476 which aerodynamically is a 1970s Il-76 with 1990s engines and 21st century avionics.
It is not just avionics and engines but FBW hence turning ability, cruising speed, flight cycles, new wing, advance manufacturing that reduce manpower. This is thing is very big project.
JSRhow Mirage has good safety record. It is now competing with MIG-21. considering the size & age of fleet.
how many MIG-21 that were produced between 1983-1988 got crashed? considering the difference in 1980s manufacturing method and quality control between HAL & Dassualt.
JSROnly in your eyes. Read the report with the claim that North Korean assistance got them to that stage.
Russia will decide for Syria whether to get nuclear weopons. Russia will not allow anyone else to have that kind of business there. It was Russia that writeoff $10b worth Soviet era loans to Syria. It is Russian firms that is drilling Oil there.
They still don’t require Russian permission. You’ll still be scratching your head in puzzlement if Israel conducts a strike and all that comes out of Russia is a strongly worded condemnation. This illusion of yours is still based on your over inflated assessment of Russian power and capabilities.
So where is that Strike on Syria that so called mighty Arabs/West ur babbling about it. Israel need Russia cooperation in this case. your asssessent is simply wrong.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/27/us-russia-putin-idUSTRE81Q04K20120227
(Reuters) – Vladimir Putin said Russia was alarmed by the “growing threat” of an attack on Iran over its nuclear programme and warned that the consequences would be “truly catastrophic.”
JSRYes, the new engines required such huge changes that you can actually retrofit them to existing aircraft :p
These are heavier engines it needs beefed up structure.
Not from scratch. Any built beyond those 10 were assembled from TAPO’s stored parts bin, not manufactured with a functional end-to-end supply chain. That may explain why they’re having so much trouble getting it built in Ulyanovsk, a working final assembly line is one thing, but if the supply chain to feed it is not healthy it will fail all the same. Who here has no idea about modern manufacturing?
There is no such thing as built from stored parts. See Volga & Silkairways example. They don’t have trouble with manufacturing parts. It is software driven large digitally manufacturing aircraft with new flight qualities. Everything is new from ground up.
Yes, that’s why firm Il-476 orders stand at 38 and Su-34 orders at 92. Very convincing.
When Su-34 project started and when IL-476 started..
Su-34 started with 32 planes first order. Once that order fulfillment is demonstrated. Second order is given. IL-476 has to demonstrate that production and certification first before even larger orders are given and this require allocation of money in multi-year budgets. If it cannot be fulfilled it is better to allocate for some thing. That’s why this whole An-70 thing is hot air at this point.
So why does Russia still want to buy it, when they have the Il-476? Just stop the nonsense, nobody’s going to believe it anyway.
Where is sign contract and manufacturing line preparation for An-70 in Russia. Ur confusing token example with long term investment.
All the interview says is that the Russian government is the primary customer – I have already explained why. Besides, the Super Hornet is being built primarily for the US Navy, yet they’ll happily sell it to international customers. You are once again talking complete rubbish.
Russia government is primary customer as they want to develop A-100 based on IL-476. F-18E got first export customer after more than 10 years in operation. Lets come back around 2025 and see where IL-4766 exports stands.
Engineering experience that is now completely useless, because major load bearing elements close to the antenna mounting point are structurally different on the Il-476.
That is not useless. A-50EI is just not aircraft that u see in final shape but 5 years of trial and error before it was delivered and that after 3 year development experience with Chinese Phalcon before delivery to Israel. The data is there. They have to put to use it to make A-100 better.
. Otherwise simple IL-76MD could be built in less than one year at TAPO. See Volga delivery schedule.
No future turboprop required, the D-27 is a very good engine that should last the life of the airframe.
Turboprops are for small regional airlines who often are bankrupt or work on government subsidies. No manufacturer will develop a product for them unless government subsidize it. All big profitable airlines like Singapore Air/Emirates/Aeroflot/Volga will trend towards the biggest one.
Why not? On both the domestic and export markets the An-70 could win all of the orders the Il-476 transport variant can achieve, plus some where Ilyushin’s aircraft is uncompetitive. Similarly, the Il-96 AWACS/tanker versions could win every contract that the corresponding Il-476 models can gain, and then some where the Il-476 is outclassed by competitors.
An-70 cannot win a single commercial order. And IL-476 has full government support as tactical transport a& AWACS and that inturn make it more usefull for Tanker
The total sales potential of the An-70/Il-96 combination is FAR superior to that of the Il-476 (transport/AEW/refuelling).
Currently there is zeroexport potential of An-70/IL-96 tanker and AWACS.
And the Il-476 has not flown AT ALL, in ANY role.
It will fly when Director largest airplane manufacturer Aviastar publicly claimed that this is there future. Your still refusing to admit reality that both of you’re An-70 and IL-96 are rejected.
Over the past 20 years, the Il-96 has been built at rates exceeding those achieved by the Il-76 (remember, only 10 of the airframes completed since 1990 were not built from partially finished sub-assemblies, ask Jane’s). If you invested even a fraction of the money they pumped in to the Il-476 line into the Il-96 line instead, it could easily be built at the required rate.
They will not invest further into IL-96 but work towards replacement for it.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080124/97649633.html
MOSCOW, January 24 (RIA Novosti) – Russia will have to give up the production of Il-96 large-body planes for airlines with routes of up to 11,000 km (6,835 miles), the industry and energy minister said on Thursday.
So the A330 or 767 would be qualified for the tactical transport role? Oh, I forgot. Nobody is considering the A330 for AEW, so it’s out I guess :rolleyes:
Your simply underestimiated the amount of time and money required to modify a large plane heavier AESA antenna for AWACS role.
They aren’t. According to UAC’s own data, the Il-476 performs almost exactly like a Il-76TD-90. There is NO difference worth talking about.
They haven’t put data for IL-476. It will comes only after testing is done. But 15 to 18% is the most quoted figure and that without next line of PD engines. There is no such multi-billion dollar engine investment in An-70. It will remain uncompetitive for years to come.
He has been clearly told to make IL-476 future proof.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uac-plots-rescue-plan-for-aviastar-356358/
A large amount of work has been done on launching the Il-76 into production,” said Pogosyan. “We continue working on reshaping the airplane and giving it new qualities that will keep it competitive for decades to come.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/russian-air-force-presents-il-76md-90-airlifter-216410/
A more advanced version of the aircraft is on the way. To be produced by VASO, the Il-476 – or “fourth-generation Il-76” – will feature PS-90A76s, a glass cockpit, and a further 13-17% improvement in fuel efficiency. Separately, an Il-76 is being used as a testbed for Kuznetsov NK-93 ducted fan engines.
Stop lying pathologically. There is NOT going to be anything like 15% difference between the Il-76 and Il-476 – same engines, same aerodynamics, no more than 3% difference in empty weight at best. And for the hundredth time, you don’t even have to take my word for it, UAC itself says they will perform the same. Do you know better than them?
Where I lied.? Prove it. See the above statements. IL-476 is different generation plane.
Because it doesn’t need any – it’s not a 40 year old anachronism like the Il-476.
We will celebrating 80 year anniverseary with 737MAX.
So you agree that it’s cheaper than the Il-476 then?
It cannot become cheaper than IL-476. IL-476 is going to be widely produced and modified for different functions. Ur simply not admitting that your wrong from beginning about An-70/IL-96.
JSRRussians are flying choppers inside Syria. will they take over Syrian airforce? limiting chance of defection and incompetence.
http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/putin-calls-in-interview-for-syrian-reforms-and-end-to-violenceeds-epa-photos_194610.html
In a surprising revelation, he said Russia had sent a helicopter to evacuate injured French journalist Edith Bouvier from the embattled city of Homs.
JSRJane’s doesn’t specify, but 2 of them would probably be the Jordanian MFs (pun NOT intended!). What does it matter, anyway?
It does matter. The amount of time and money required in developing A-50EI with beefed up engines is like developing new transport from ground up. There are certainly more than 10 built since 1990.
Because it’s 70% Russian – if Russia decided to throw a hissy fit over some political event in Ukraine and pulled the plug, China would be SOL. Having seen what happened in 2005, you can’t blame them for wanting no part of thats risk.
Why it is 70% Russia. If it was so superior it would have been 100% Russian by now. Russia does not lack of money. And Russia have no problem in offering joined projects to China. See wide-body airliner and heavy chopper offer. IL-76 was issue about price and production timeline.
China is simply not interested in An-70. It will try to muddle through An-70 looke alike with D-30 engines.
How about you answer this? UAC is quite eager to sell the Il-476 to China, so if it is anywhere near as good as you make it out to be, why have they NOT ordered it but are preferring to develop their own solution?
UAC is eager to sell but at what price and what time line.Look at my link. The preferred and largest customer is Ruaf. And it will take atleast 20 years to satisfy Ruaf demands. As I mentioned before you have no idea modern manufacturing. The demand for IL-476 is far greater in Ruaf than Su-34. So all production will be booked
Like China they would be stupid to commit to the An-70 without even knowing if Russia will allow the project to be completed. Let’s look at it from a different perspective, if they are as besotted with the Il-476 as you claim, why have they not already ordered THAT aircraft instead? It is on offer, all they’d need to do is sign the dotted line.
China is not commited to An-70 because it is inferior product. Manufactured in questionable conditions.
Could it be that they are actually less than impressed and would favour the An-70, so they won’t commit to the Il-476 until they know their preferred option is dead?
They simply cannot get a hand over it. Its exports are closed for foreseeable future. See the interview of IL-476 primary customer.
Steps required to enter service:
Il-96: modify airframe for AEW/refuelling, test/certify modifications
A lot of engineering and experience has been gained in A-50EI certification. No one is going to waste time on modifying another plartform at this point. IL-96 will be replaced by new wide body aircraft in less than 12 years but IL-476 production will continue for next 40 years.
An-70: finish remaining flight tests, set up production line in Russia
Setup production line?. Who is going to waste half a decade in digitally mastering it and develop future turoboprop for it.
Il-476: set up production line in Russia, beef up wing structure, integrate new avionics, build flying prototype, build static test article, conduct complete flight test campaign, perform static tests, modify airframe for AEW/refuelling, test/certify modifications
IL-476 testing success is assured. It is the most widely built large airplane since 1990s.
How the hell is the Il-476 supposed to be cheaper?! It has taken more steps already than required for either of the two others and will need several more just to arrive at the stage where they are NOW. And in an environment where the An-70 is available the Il-476 is not going to sell nearly as many units as you seem to believe.
It is going to be cheaper through mass production. Which An-70/IL-96 combined cannot match.
From Ilyushin’s own figures and Il-96 customers. Besides, the Il-96 and An-70 have been flying for 18 years now either operationally or in testing. If you want to play the doubt game their specifications are much MORE reliable than for the Il-476, which has not even flown yet.
None of them flying as AWACS/Tanke platform. So specifications are not reliable. Remember IL-476 is 5 in 1 airplance. Tanker/AWACS/Tactical transport and its contribution to MTA/IL-76 upgrades.
Normally it isn’t, but when you mess up the combined alternative as comprehensively as they are doing with the Il-476 (or arguably the F-35) it absolutely can happen.
F-35 is a small plane so it cannot be that versatile.
UAC already has a An-124 production line in Ulyanovsk. Initial An-70 production would be in Ukraine, i.e. not under the UAC umbrella, so why WOULD they list it? And where is the Il-476 (or are you admitting that it’s nothing more than a Il-76?) and why is the cancelled Il-112 still listed? A very poor source for an extremely weak argument.
IL-476 look like IL-76 just as Su-35 look like Su-27.
Actual plan, currently:
An-124, Il-476 (also AEW and refuelling), Il-76MD-90 (interim), An-70 – four distinct airframes.My proposal:
An-124, Il-96 (AEW and refuelling only), Il-76MD-90 (interim), An-70 – four distinct airframes.
Ur proposal is unworkable. IL-96 cannot be produced at IL-476 rates and IL-476 All in One solution make things cheaper. U know already no one seriously will consider An-70 as AWACS/Tanker platform. This alone disqualifies it for tactical transport role.
You hardly gain any simplification at all from using the Il-476, since commonality with the legacy Il-76s is actually quite limited (different avionics and hence different crew training, Il-96 offers engine commonality too).
They use the same engines and will implement the same cockpit. I was very generous in calculating fuel consumption figures. New IL-76 and IL-96 are much closer than 40% difference ur claiming.
http://www.avid.ru/eng/products/civil/PS-90A2/
Fuel consumption does not exceed 7000…8000 kg per one flight hour for IL-96-300 aircraft and 3500 kg per one flight hour for Tu-204 aircraft.
“Far” greater speed? The difference is about 10%! As for range, if you want to move roll-on/roll-off cargo you will often wind up using the An-124 anyway, because bulky items won’t fit inside the Il-476. If it’s palletised freight, fill the main deck of your Il-96 tanker – it can haul 50% more weight than the Il-476 or carry the same load thousands of kilometres further.
Crusiing speed of IL-476 will be 850km/hr. (that without next generation engines and materials)
An-70 will be hard pressed to do 700km/hr. that is more like 20% difference. It does not matter if An-70 can take bulky cargo as it has only 3000km range with 47ton cargo. With 47ton. IL-476 will go as far as 6000km.
as TD-90 can go 6300km with 40ton. Add 15 to 18% improvement for IL-476
http://www.uacrussia.ru/ru/models/transport/il_76/data/
http://www.antonov.com/products/air/transport/AN-70/its.xml
The strengths (such as they are) of the Il-476 only manifest in VERY specific situations. Basically, it is outclassed by at least one alternative unless your mission meets ALL five of the following criteria *simultaneously* (strike even a single one of them and something else will perform more efficiently):
– long range (otherwise you’re better off with the An-70)
Is it a joke that better off with An-70. This plane has no credibility. No modification. No investor. Not even India will invest in it but they will wait for MTA which Is twin engine IL-476.
– roll-on/roll-off loading (otherwise the Il-96 is better)
– compact cargo (otherwise you need the An-124 anyway)
– weight below 60 tons (ditto)
– weight in excess of 47 tons (otherwise you can use the Il-76MD-90)
IL-96 is not a tactical transport. It cannot fly troops to desert airfields. So why even bring it. An-70 has half the range of IL-476.
Note that the Russian air force would not lose the ability to perform such missions if the Il-476 did not exist, as the An-124 can do it no problem at all, albeit at somewhat higher cost. So is a moderate advantage in very special circumstances worth accepting all the disadvantages the Il-476 brings (higher fuel burn, lower endurance, lower fuel offload, lower export appeal, small cargo hold) in the vast majority of other cases? It doesn’t make sense to hold onto it just because it burns 20% less fuel on 10 flights a year when it’ll burn 30% more on the other 90.
Il-76MD-90 avionics are different from Il-476 avionics, as you yourself have mentioned – you might as well use Il-96s which also have PS-90A engines on that basis.
You can write long paragraphs. It is already over for An-70. It can only exist as low cost alternative to IL-476 but it cannot take the place of IL-476. TD-90 has credibility of 7.2 tons per hr burn rate.
JSRThe fact that they haven’t bothered to upgrade it very much over the *past* 40 years? Changing the engines is pretty much the most substantial and useful thing they did, and it’s such a simple upgrade that it can actually be retrofitted to existing airframes. Not impressive for a new-built aircraft.
Russia never had the money in past 40 years to implement this scale of upgrades on single product. When you have less money u spread that money among various mediocre products so none of the product becomes world class. There was Putin press conference in December. He has pretty strong words for Gorbachev. (basically Gorbi failed to support saddam in 1990s that could have driven gas prices sky high for extended period time) it was since 1980s that funding was starved out
Not 10 manufactured in total, 10 manufactured *from scratch*. More were “built” but they were assembled from stored parts manufactured before 1990.
Can you give the operators. Which 10 aircraft are those.
Because they wanted a few tankers and could not get anything else? What does this have to do with the Il-96, which was NOT on the table?
How do u know IL-96 is not on the table?. Since you claim China does not have choice. Why don’t they fund An-70. Since u claim An-70 is 30% efficient than latest IL-76. So it must be 50% more efficient than older D-30 powered IL-76.
When I am talking about the Il-96 I am ALWAYS talking about AEW and refuelling – the Il-96 is not offered for those tasks, so nobody can be waiting for it. As for transport, Polet would be eager to take more Il-96-400Ts and with respect to civilian sales of the Il-476 you are reading WAAAYY too much into Volga-Dnepr’s expression of interest. As I proved the last time we discussed this, you can find on their website at least as many statements of interest in the An-70 (not surprising, given how much better it is than the Il-476).
They bought 5 TD-90. And have 20 other in operations. How many An-70 they are willing to buy?.
Neither does your precious Il-476 – nobody other than the Russian MoD has made a *firm* commitment to it yet, and if the An-70 makes it into service that is probably going to remain so. As I said, the only customers for the I-476 will be the Russian state and airlines or air forces that can’t get anything else (and if the An-70 is available that will be a very short list indeed). If it is a success it won’t be through merit but strong-arming and lobby work against the An-70.
Let IL-476 certified first. There is firm commitment to A-100 project.
http://en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120302/171691313.html
The aircraft will be primarily built for the Russian Armed Forces and Emergencies Ministry.
“Project 476 is our future,” Aviastar General Director Sergei Dementyev said.
Stop putting words in my mouth, you are not fooling anybody. I have NEVER suggested that an AWACS/tanker based on the An-70 should be built – I am, and ALWAYS have been, arguing for a combination of Il-96s (AEW/refuelling) and An-70s (airlift). You are being deliberately obtuse, I have clearly specified what I mean countless times over!
http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/charter/fleet/il76/specific/
Well IL-76 is 7.2tons per hr. IL-476 giving conservative improvement of 10% will make it to 6.5 tons per hr. Even with ur own optimistic estimate of 40% improvement with IL-96. It will still be 4.5 tons per hr.
2 tons per hr. with 1000 hr per year for AWACS. Is at most 2000 tons of fuel per AWACS. Multiply it with 20 AWACS. It is gonna be 40,000tons per year of fuel saving. Multiply it by 40 year life. It is 1.6m tons of fuel. That is at most $1.9B savings in fuel over 40 years.
Which is not much considering greater production of IL-476 will lower the acq cost much lower. So there is no point in introducing two types An-70 & IL-96 when one type IL-476 can job of tactical airlifter/Tanker/AWACS.
Any engine you can put on the Il-476 you could also put on the Il-96, and no turbofan in the world could ever turn the Il-476 into a better military transport than the An-70. The latter is about 30% more efficient today, the gain from using PD-14s on the Il-476 would be about 15% (similar to going from the A320 to the A320NEO) and it still wouldn’t have the same STOL capabilities. As I said, a pig wearing lipstick, but a pig nonetheless.
From where u get idea of some thing 30% fuel efficient today. These are all paper specifications. Nothing to do with reality.
It might have been cheaper to buy than a mixed Il-96/An-70 fleet IF they had 1) not been forced to move the entire production line to Russia first, and 2) not waited until the Il-96/An-70 overtook the Il-476 in development. So if it isn’t cheaper to purchase, why would you choose an aircraft that is WORSE than the alternatives in all of its three roles? Especially when it also burns 30% more fuel on each and every single flight over its 30 year service life.
It is never cheaper to buy a mixed aircraft. IL-476 will remain the most numerous large transport in world. I already gave you calculation for AWACS. IL-476 has common x-section, cockpit and engine with MTA. Which is next big thing.
How the HELL is that supposed to be cheaper and better? If it was 1994 today and the Il-96 had barely entered service and the An-70 was still on the ground, then yes, cancelling those two and starting over with the Il-476 could perhaps have been cheaper. You’d save a lot of unspent money on the other two projects and that might have been worth accepting the inferior performance of the Il-476 for. BUT, that was almost 20 years ago! In today’s environment it is the WRONG decision, the Il-96 has an established production line and the An-70 will soon finish testing – the better-performing rivals now need LESS money to bring into service than the Il-476. Too little, too late.
An-70 will soon finish testing. And production line will be ready. It just show you don’t know a thing about modern manufacturing. Do you see An-70 in product list?. An-124 there.
http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/models/cargo/
It is also incorrect that choosing a mixed Il-96/An-70 fleet would result in fewer airframe types – again, the Russian air force wants to acquire An-124s anyway. If you have An-124s and An-70s there is no airlift task that would require the Il-476, so why spend money on an aircraft that quite simply isn’t needed? Sure, it would be nice to have an intermediate step between the two Antonovs, but the Il-476 is very poor at filling that niche because its cargo hold is *smaller* than that of the An-70!
There is noting common between An-124 and An-70. IL-476 has far greater speed and range than An-70. Speed & range is very important for airlifter for round the clock operations.
Many loads that are too heavy for the An-70 would still require you to jump straight up to the An-124, because they are too wide and tall to fit inside the Il-476. So the number of missions where the Il-476 would be the most efficient choice among these three airlifters is very small, and for this tiny number of exceptional cases it makes no sense to expensively deploy a third airframe. You gain one on the AWACS/tanker side of the equation but can save one on the transport side. And that’s without considering the interim capabilities offered by upgraded Il-76MD-90s, which provide most of the performance of the Il-476 at a fraction of the price.
IL-476 is modern FBW, reduced crew, long flight hrs, digitally manufactured plane. It has nothing to do with old manufacturing methods. Infact IL-76 is the most heaviest use plane. Infact upgrading old IL-76 with new engines/avionics will lower the cost of engines/avionics for new built IL-476. That current inventory modernization supports new built by itself.
JSRI never claimed it did… that was your harebrained suggestion. At least it’s aerodynamics have been comprehensively updated *twice*.
What makes you think IL-476 will not be updated during its production run for next 40 years?. Era of IL-476 is just beginning. It is already more than 25% more efficient compared to 1970s era IL-76 with 50% more payload and increased range.
95% of which inherited their Il-76s second hand, essentially for free from former air force and Aeroflot stocks (only 10 have been manufactured from scratch since 1990). Big surprise.
How 10 manufactured?. Alteast 3 IAF AWACS and 4 PLAAF AWACS. Creating an AWACS is like creating new airplane from ground up.
I’ve no idea where the hell you are getting the impression that I have, at any junction, suggested that the Il-96 should be used for transport. So why would there be demand for a cargo Il-96 in the Russian air force, and why would China want to modify the Il-96 when they are also looking primarily for a transport?
Why was there 8 IL-78 part of Chinese order.
Easy: what else is there for China? Ilyushin isn’t giving them the Il-96 and their indigenous project is supposed to be an airlifter first and foremost (because, in fact, Ilyushin is incapable of even giving them the Il-76 anymore…), as mentioned before.
Where you get this impression that IL-96 is not for export and only IL-76 can be exported. Infact they are marketing IL-96 but every one is waiting for superior product called IL-476.
http://www.airfleet.ru/arhiv/n3_2009/glonass_equipment_a_guarantee_of_technological_security/
Our strategy is to increase our presence in the markets of Asia
I think that this is the best sort of agitation for the new Russian aircraft, and for our services. These services I just mentioned show to the Chinese, both passengers and airline personnel, how airlines of their neighboring countries work using Russian equipment. In that situation, an interest is naturally sparks up, sometimes out of mere curiosity, in the economics and various features of the new airplanes made in Russia.That is why it is so important to us to see successful start of Il-96-400T regular services into China. To see Chinese cargoes actually getting onboard of these new Russian airplanes, to be carried far away from their country of origin.
Of course, because it doesn’t have the strengthened wing. What use is a 60 ton payload though when many such big loads will be too bulky to fit inside the tiny fuselage?
It is going to be big success. Ur previous aircraft An-70 has zero commercial orders.
As I said, you are free to assume the Il-96 has nuclear-bunker fuselage walls. And in any case, I can only repeat that the proper comparison of cargo compartment sizes is with the *An-70*, as I am NOT proposing the Il-96 for _airlift_ in the first place!
An-70 cannot be compared to IL-476 as AWACS/Tanker version of An-70 has no prospect yet and no commercial operator is going to buy it in numbers.
We’ll see about the MTA, it doesn’t seem to be moving an inch, frankly.
It will surely move after IL-476. MTA is staring with PD engines and the same engines will equip IL-476 later.
Yup, An-70 + An-124, bolstered in the interim by upgraded Il-76MD-90s, will do the cargo job just fine – no need for the Il-476 whatsoever. It’s a waste of money.
IL-476 is best use of money. When AWACS/Tanker/Transport is same aircraft. See the huge acq cost of new KC tankers and C-17 for USAF. And I am not even adding next generation multifunctional AWACS. These are all different airframes and built at different places. You cannot compare new built airframe with upgrading old. And with new Airframe new construction methods and materials are introduced.
JSRDoes the Il-476 have an all-composite wing? Nope, so what’s your point? It doesn’t even have supercritical airfoils for god’s sake, it’s just the original, antiquated metal wing manufactured with modern tools out of fewer, integrally machined parts. In fact this may well be just as much a cost saving exercise as it is a strengthening measure, because it reduces manual labour in assembly and allows modern machine tools to be used for manufacture of the individual parts. You have to wonder where 2 years’ worth of delays comes from in that!
As for the cockpit of the 737-700, you might find a look at some airliners.net photos instructive.
737-700 $65m price is only applicable when it is produced over 200 a year. IL-476 price of $100m still good enough even if produced 10 to 15 per year. And 737-700 does not have all composite wing either. IL-476 simply has bigger market and much more room for improvement. IL-476 manufactured in 2020 will be much improved.
That’s exactly my point, the Il-96 is like a Porsche Cayenne while the Il-476 is a 1950s Ferrari – a true classic that was once at the forefront of its field, but is now completely outclassed by even modern SUVs.
It is certainly not cayenne. There are still more Civillian buyers for IL-76 than IL-96.
Look at Azerbaijan Silkairways. Companies are waiting for IL-476.
Same for the Il-476 – they both have to be basically beefed up from scratch because they modified the structure compared to the Il-76, so there’s no advantage in it one way or the other. This whole issue is inconsequential.
There is simply no demand for cargo IL-96 in Ruaf which is at the end going to be biggest customer for IL-476 & MTA. So it is moot point in producing more IL-96.
I have not dropped that claim. It was 10 years ago when China was unable to modify the Il-76 without Ilyushin’s cooperation and the situation has changed in the mean time. Welcome to 2012! Although maybe I should not be surprised, after all you are the guy who thinks the basic Il-76 airframe is still competitive today, so you are definitely living in the past :rolleyes:
Ok 10 years ago they could not modify and now they could modify it based on your claim. so why not they modify IL-96 instead of wasting 60% more fuels on D-30 powered KJ-2000. D-30 is only good for 12 tons. PS-90A1 for IL-96-400 is 17.6 Tons. You are unable to provide reasonable explaination of continous use of KJ-2000.
Glass cockpit and FBW will do ******-all for its fuel consumption, so there is no difference between the TD-90 and Il-476 in this respect. All the new cockpit does is ensure the crews will have to be expensively retrained if you are an operator who already flies legacy Il-76s – brilliant idea! No performance benefit, but considerable additional cost, makes perfect sense.
Glass cockpit lighter the cockpit and reduce the crews. There is big difference between TD-90 and IL-476. latest TD-90 is good only for 50 tons. See Volga example.
http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/cargo/96400t.html
Fuselage diameter: 6.08m
http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/cargo/76td90.html
Fuselage diameter: 4.8m
I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether it is realistic to assume that the Il-96 fuselage walls are more than 1.3m thicker :rolleyes:
As I’ve pointed out to TR1, you should be comparing to the An-70 in this regard anyway – the Il-96 is for AEW, where fuselage diameter is pretty much irrelevant.
http://www.cthomas.de/images/an70-cutaway-diagram.jpg
The maximum *interior* width is as wide as the *exterior* fuselage diameter of the Il-76! Floor width is still half a metre more than inside the Il-76.
So they are perfect Circle that your putting diameters. Width of IL-476 is 3.45m and that is same x-section of MTA. You forgetting that in long run IL-476 will be cheaper to manufacture as it will share a lot of things with MTA. Which has its own market of several hundreds planes.
for larger loads. there is An-124.
Sign In
