what does this statment mean? It is Volga saying that there is not enough demand inside Russia both in government and private companies so they are suggesting it into EU countries who are waiting for A400m.
The product is simply uncompetitive. there is no ringing endorsement of the product.

Although its payload and range are smaller, Volga-Dnepr regards it as a “younger brother” to the four-engined jet, says [Volga-Dnepr group commercial director] Gliznoutsa. He suggests that European nations waiting for the delayed Airbus A400M may be interested in chartering the type.

Where to start?

Il-76 has its own, uncontested market? Really? Tell me, how many new-built Il-76 have been delivered in the last decade? :diablo:

Dont believe on non sense that IL-76 are built leftover airframes. All IL-76 with PS-90 engines are new built. infact the IL-476 initial some of the parts will come from Tashkent factory. There 3 AEW A-50 for IAF and alteast 4 AEW for PLAAF. so it is atleast 7 AWACS conversion. No one else has engineering expertize to convert these giants. How many AEW has EADS converted on this scale. Atleast one A-50U upgrade flying.
IL-76 has pretty solid market which is pretty much uncontested and nich.

http://www.heavyliftpfi.com/content/newsitem.aspx?rf=1&id=2120
n his report, Isaikin outlined the scope of Volga-Dnepr’s presence in the global air cargo market, achieved through active use of AN-124-100 Ruslan and IL-76 maindeck aircraft, reinforcing the group’s commitment to continue to increase its use of these aircraft. This is confirmed by an order for 40 new AN-124 and 20 new IL-76 aircraft that has been placed with United Aircraft Corporation of Russia (UAC).

An AESA antenna of 1 ton really is no big deal, on an airliner. The Erieye antenna is about 900 kg. Look at the size of the aircraft it’s mounted on. Fighter radar antennae have CG implications, because of their position, & fighters have to do a lot more than carry a radar. The radar is a tool to enable them to do their main tasks. For an AEW aircraft, the radar & C&C suite is everything. It carries no bombs, no missiles.

I am only talking in relations with A-50. The antenna structure of A-50 i read is atleast 5 tons for regular one. AESA weight will be over the top of it. Try to put 6 tons Antenna on top of SAAB-2000/EMB-145.
AWACS is not just C&C but looking at both and air ground targets at extended range. It is C&C control for combined air & ground forces. thats why Ruaf head has said that A-100 has support of Joint staff. Smaller AWACS dont have that range and imaging capability for ground troops at extended ranges.

Raw power & size of antenna is important, but it is not the only thing that counts. If it did, why upgrade the A-50? Sophistication of software, processing power, etc. are all important. Nor does aircraft performance in itself make one system better than another. It helps, but the radar system is more important.

When every thing else equal raw power and antenna counts.

Installed thrust most definitely is not the main factor! You seem to believe that because some fighters have more thrust than some AEW aircraft, that makes the AEW aircraft useless against them. Tell me, do you know what a radar does? 😀

5G fighters are practically making these smaller AWACS obsolete with all there net centric and AESA power capabilities. 5G fighters have crusing speed, altitude and power advantages and AESA module is small enough for there flat noses. They also do come with even longer range missiles.
This is not time to create a smaller AWACS as far as Ruaf is concerned.

A380 is no longer consuming much Airbus engineering resources, & what it is is mainly production engineering, not design & development. The Chinese production line consumes only production engineering resources, & I think not very much of them, now. The Chinese do most of the work. It’s delivered over 50 A320s now. BTW, EADS has a very large pile of cash which it’s looking for productive ways to invest. Experience with a small radome on the C-295 could be leveraged into a larger one, y’know. 😉

50 over two years. A-320 based on bulk of imported parts that need to flown on expensive transport. There is great chance this venture will be closed down as Chinese labor charges explode.
It loses money compared to built in EU as production number is too small. A-320 is not high value 787 that can recoup its transported part charges.
EADS simply dont have money for large scale AWACS works unless they want another bail out from EU tax payers.

I am pretty skeptical about this libya oil. ever since this conflict start since last January. Brent price moved up by 40%. this pretty much eliminated any economic growth in France/UK for past two quarters. the principal countries behind removing gaddfly. at most where Irak stands today. libya will be there in 5 years interms of production.

What demand for engines will Il-76 create? How? Do you mean upgrades? Given the age of most Il-76s, I don’t expect a large-scale re-engining. It won’t be economic.

you dont expect based on what?. You were not expecting 950 production either.
Ruaf has included upgrades for IL-76. and IL-476 variations will use engine PD-14 in later version.
IL-76 has its own market. which is pretty much uncontested for decades to come.

Different class = smaller, that’s all. They aren’t less sophisticated. A330 AWACS with an existing radar & C&C suite would not take 15 years, or ten. It’d be like the E-767. Developing a complete new system from scratch would take longer, but that is not what the disagreement is over.

No one is stupid to pay for A330 with obsolete radar and less capability. I said there is practically zero engineering resources and finananical strength at Airbus to convert into AWACS. Airbus already in deep whole in A400m, A-380, and Chinese assembly line.

Elta, Airbus & Raytheon bid for the Australian Wedgetail contract, BTW, based on the A310. Boeing & Northrop Grumman won, with an all-new & very innovative system. It was years late – but even so, completed in well under 15 years. The delays were with the radar, not the airframe integration.

Wedge is smaller than A-50EI. so less capability. Wedgetail has 6500km range. Current A-50 at 7500km with 30 year old engines.

Whether AESA or non-AESA is no big deal. As I said, SAAB-Ericsson has integrated Erieye (look up what type of radar that is) on three different airframes, & the TOTAL development cost is less than you’re claiming it’ll cost to put an already developed system on an already developed airframe. ELTA & Airbus expect to spend a small fraction of what you suggest on integrating a variant of the EL/M-2085, in a significantly different configuration from that already in service, on a new airframe. Your figures have no basis whatsoever.

AESA & Non-AESA are big deal when your dealing with such huge Antenna. In fighter radar AESA version may be heavier by 100kg but for AWACS it could be 1 ton. AESA radars are heavy and two to three times more effective with more functionality.
The non-afterburning thrust of a 5G fighters are more than thrust provided by SAAB-2000/E-2/C-295 and nearly equal to Wedgetail sytem. These turboprop has lower curising ceiling.
They are pretty much worthless in terms of effectivenes against 5G fighter radar systems.
Future A-100 will be atleast 68 to 76 tons of combined thrust so effectivness of system will be way higher than any comparable fighter or AWACS. It is the raw power & size of antenna that counts.

IL-476 and reengining of IL-76 will add vast opportunities for PS-90/PD-14.
I have read Pogo interview in MAKS. The minimum estimate of IL-476 is 150.
add to that upgrade of 100 to 200 IL-76. you have big production run. IL-476 production run will continue for multiple decades.
IL-76 will create alot of demand for engines. Brazil is not commited to KC-390 to same extent in quantities. IL-476 will be 100% Russian and operated by Russian transport firms. who had the experiance in this business model. KC-390 at most 30% Brazil. with no commericial prospects.There is practically no comparision between two programs.

E-767 is not an AESA radar. It is same obsolete Pulse doppler sytem of current upgrade A-50M. integrating a giant AESA anetenna is different thing with full Command and control, ground survellance.

Erieye/C-296/G550 are entirely in different class than upcoming A-100.
you wont see A-330 AWACS. in less than 15 years if development starts today and at the price no one will afford and it will consume what ever engineering resources Airbus has left and will have negative impact on all other products.

Except that lack of a worldwide support network for the PS-90A was and is a major part of the reason why the Il-96 and Tu-204 have failed to win substantial commercial orders. The same issue affects the Il-76 and will also affect the Il-476 – ask yourself why the vast majority of Il-76s in operation today were acquired second-hand from old Aeroflot and air force stocks.

IF the Il-76/476 did have an advantage in this respect you’d have a point, but actually they’re in practically the same situation as the Il-96 and An-70. Everything you said about the latter here applies just as much to the Il-76/476 – don’t be fooled by the large fleet of USED airframes as swerve has alluded to.

Think again.
early PS-90 are not good enough for reliablity and fuel efficiency. so cost of upgrade was not worth over D-30 upgrades.
now with PS-90A2/A3 and PD-14. there will be improvement.
It is not lack of network alone. Now after more than a decade of operation. they have certian degree of confidence. there was no production capacity for new built IL-76. now they are building it for decades to come. big investment.

Exactly. Rough field capabilities for refuellers and AEW are useless.

Designing new AWACS takes billions and can add atleast a decade of certification. Not to mention taking crictical design resources from other projects. The people who are doing have done this analysis. THere is zero chance of An-70 and IL-96 AWACS.

Bolded the important bit for you. That doesn’t say “due to technical difficulties”, does it? So, as I said, the problem is lack of commitment from the sponsoring governments, nothing else.

The fact no one believes on them make them wanting government funds. It is just not completing the testing but to have viable product in market that can return its initial investment.
For example A400m, A380 are not viable products. They will never return on money invested in them. IL-76 has 1000 built. Widely exported and just spares to export customers like China/India quite valuable with wide operational experience.

How? Power to weight is similar, OPR is similar, turbine inlet temperature is similar, stage counts are similar, fuel consumption is obviously excellent – you’re just making up imaginary arguments again.

U have to be skeptical about An-70 weight claim. Aeroflot is now finding out that Sukhoi SSJ engine is overweight.

You mean the A400M actually has less ferry range than the An-70? Apart from disagreeing with data from both manufacturers, that’s an odd argument, coming from you… If your reading comprehension (or is it that you’re wearing blinders?) is like this when researching the Il-96 and An-70 it would go a long way toward explaining your opinions.

It is the reliability of data. To date no one can exactly figure out how many hr An-70 is tested. A400m has monthly tally.

Again. The Il-96 has an empty weight of around 115 tons. With 50 tons of payload and a MTOW of 270 tons, you get 105 tons of fuel. That 105 tons is enough to transport 50 tons of cargo over 10000km.

http://www.ifc-leasing.com/netcat_files/File/en/il-96-400t.pdf

50% more fuel for over 100% more range. With the same engines.

50% more fuel efficient?. 105 tons fuel carrying 50 tons to 10,000km. IL-76 carries 50ton to 4600km on 70 ton fuel. but IL-76 is not IL-476 which is 13 to 17% more fuel efficient. so 70 tons to about 5250km. and the same 70tons fuel will give 6800km for IL-96. but 35% more efficient does not tell the whole story. Civil airlines are more expensive to built.for materials and aerodynamic shape.
A330 is not cheaper than C-17 despite A330 has 6 times more production.
And it take very long time to convert them AWACS when your dealing with high powered AESA with full C&C capabilities.. Look at time line of Boeing for 737. I am fully convinced of business case for IL-476.

The An-70 has an empty weight of around 66 tons. With 47 tons of cargo and a MTOW of 145 tons, you have 32 tons left for fuel. That 32 tons of fuel gives you a range of 3000km. 55% less fuel for just 35% less range, essentially same payload.

How do u know empty weight of An-70. Is it in commercial operations. What is flight cycles of the airframe?. how reliable are the engines and systems. Engines of IL-476 are PS-90.

Which ever way you look at it, both the Il-96 and the An-70 completely slaughter the Il-76/476 in terms of fuel efficiency. And that’s with conservative assumptions for the former two in terms of OEW and MTOW, i. e. assuming the highest realistic fuel loads for them to be as kind as possible to the Il-476.

Can we now put this notion to bed once and for all that the Il-76TD-90, and by extension also the Il-476 with its identical aerodynamics and engines, is anything but an obsolescent flying barn door?

IL-476 is one generation advance than TD-90. It has FBW, New wing, lighter avionics and further improvement to engines, built on new manufacturing machines for longer life
Not in TAPO. As PS-90 are continuously improved over time. Remember only talks of An-70 are on schedule nothing concrete.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/russia-special/manufacturing/

And I just get the sense that the Il-476 is going to take at least as long (or at least that it would, if it was starved of funding as regularly as the An-70 is). It’s *already* two years late, in terms of service entry!

Your still not answering the point why it is starved of funding?. Why A400m is so expensive and why MTA & Embarrer not pursuing Turboprop.
If it was remotely close to completion or reliable. India would have chosen Antonov as Partner for its MTA project. Isnt a twin engine turboprop for 20ton cargo more fuel efficient option.

And as I said, prove to me that you’re not talking out of you posterior and I might consider such points. Suffice it to say, the An-140 is not the An-70 either.

An-140 had funding and it still fall apart. Now they are going to use Siemens PLM software. They are more than a decade behind where UAC stands in using digital format manufacturing. http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_sg/about_us/success/case_study.cfm?Component=57503&ComponentTemplate=1481

I’m sure you can prove the An-70 has a shorter service life than the Il-476 :rolleyes:

IL-76 is commerically in service and is viable aircraft. An-70 is paper aircraft. dont be fooled by its prototype flying. It is not meeting none of its design parameters. You dont do R&D for some thing nearing its production. The head of Volga-Denpr is one of designer of An-124. they know where Antonov stands. They have 14 IL-76 in service and they are going to get 20 to 30 IL-76. there is no commitment on this scale to An-70.
http://www.interfax.com.ua/eng/eco/76447/
Ukraine’s economic news
Research, design work on An-70 could be delayed due to lack of funds from Ukraine, says Antonov head

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/18/357486/paris-russias-air-force-gets-real.html
The Ukraine-built Antonov An-70 transport, on which the Russian air force has blown hot and cold for several years, appears to have acquired a new lease of life, with Russia again backing the programme. However, Barrie says: “You just get the sense there’s an awful long way to go before you’ve got that aircraft ready to go into service.”

It is not. Despite a (small!) number of paper advantages such as a carbon fibre wing, drastic weight increases have wiped out any performance gains.

Small advantages. Just the avionics and engine tech in A400m is two generation advance than An-70.

Which is the reason why it has a longer ferry range than the An-70 when not carrying any cargo.

Longer ferry range on paper.

109500 litres of fuel weighs about 88 tons – are you disputing Ilyushin’s own data?

Large aircraft like these commonly have to trade off fuel and payload to stay within MTOW limits – the Il-476 will be no exception (and it’s 210 tons not 195 for the Il-76TF, which is what I used for the comparison). Take the Tu-160 as an extreme example, with full internal fuel it could not take off even with NO payload at all! The idea in this case is to take off with weapons and a reduced fuel load and then fill up by inflight refuelling.

Again. IL-76 has empty weight of 75tons. with 50 tons payload and 195 MTOW. You get 70 tons for fuel. That 70 tons fuel is enough to transport 50ton cargo through 4600km. it is right on Volg-denpr site.

Why? The aerodynamic shape will be exactly the same, and a few hundred kilograms (at most) of weight saving will never result in a 10 to 15% efficiency improvement. Ease of manufacture and increased service life were the reasons for modifying the wing structure.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/08/31/216410/russian-air-force-presents-il-76md-90-airlifter.html

In other words, you just made that up and hoped nobody would challenge it.

The sheer magnitude of the fuel burn advantage for the An-70 speaks for itself. If they were within 10 or 15% of one another you might have a point, but the actual numbers leave very little doubt as to which is better. In this regard the Il-96 comparison is very instructive because the An-70 takes advantage of similar aerodynamic concepts – even when you take the propulsion factor out of the equation, newer designs are substantially more efficient.

As i said service life and fue efficiency of An-70 are just on paper. It may even break carrying actual loads. One of An-140 recently broke.

http://www.volga-dnepr.com/eng/group/projects/l76_modern/
IL-76TD-90VD operation shows big demand for this aircraft and its promising utilization. In 2007 the IL-76 traffic volume grew by 46% as compared to 2006 and by 60% as in 2005 thus making $140 mln.; the two new aircraft performed 137 flights and carried over 2000 tons of cargo. Within three quarters of 2008 the IL-76TD-90VD traffic volume grew by 78% as compared to 2007.

IL-76TD-90VD has no direct competitors among the commercial ramp freighters with capacity over 50 tons. By the aviation experts’ estimation the aircraft will retain its leading position up to at least 2020. The transportation cost of one-ton cargo on board the IL-76TD-90VD is twice as cheep as that on Hercules which is the only immediate foreign-made rival of IL-76TD.

All three A-50EI do not use the Il-476’s modified wing however, which will require static testing even without the addition of a radome.

A-50EI has proven that heavier antenna and engines can be carried. and there was 5 years of development work behind it. and put 7 years of developmnet work on top of that for IL-476. with acutal funds.