An-70 Program

Azarov says Ukrainian aviation industry could be saved only by Russia

Cooperation with the Russian Federation will save the Ukrainian aviation industry.

This was stated by Prime Minister Mykola Azarov to the TV channel ICTV on Sunday.

He stressed that Ukraine will not be able to independently develop this industry.

"This is about whether the industry, our air, will it ever be, or not?" Shall we alone pick it up, or fail to? "Obviously, we fail, because in the past 10 years, Ukraine has built a total- nothing more than three aircraft, "- said Mykola Azarov.

He reminded that Ukraine has supplied engines for Russian helicopters. "Now Russia has designed the construction of its helicopter plant, ie plant helicopter engines. Please tell us then ... to close plant" Motor Sich ", - noted Mykola Azarov.

He also said that negotiations on cooperation in aircraft are maintained and expressed the conviction that the parties can agree on a joint production of military transport aircraft. "We are already engaged in serious negotiations on this matter, we agree on the joint production of medium-haul aircraft", - said Mykola Azarov.

He also stressed that in addition to aircraft, planned to develop cooperation in the field of mechanical engineering, energy, transport infrastructure development.

Including Azarov confirmed that negotiations with Russia on the construction of transport crossing through the Kerch Strait.

http://unian.net/rus/news/news-374168.html

Vladimir79 wrote:What good is the comparison if we have to use foreign engines? There is no such thing as the TV7-117V[2]. It doesn't exist. TV7-117V is still seeking funding for its research. The project is delayed until this engine is made operational since P&W is sanctioned from selling to Oboronprom. Turbomeca backed out of this project since they feared IP would be lost... its looks like their suspicions were correct. Now China has the Mi-38 and claim it a domestic civilian helicopter. But it isn't a problem for China to get P&W engines under a civilian contract clause. The timetable for Mi-38 was pushed back to 2014 when the sanctions hit.

All of which point to one thing: notin' wrong with Klimov or Mil, everything wrong with the politicians who put them in impossible conditions (not to mention 2 decades of utter chaos under Gorbi and Boris)

Vladimir79 wrote: You throw money at Oboronprom and it will just be spent buying new dachas for the executives. The company needs to be torn down and built from the bottom up with stricter regulation and accountability.

Yep. My reference was not about giving money to Oboronprom, but to the Russian military so they can finally have semi-decent conditions and means to maintain their birds and pay the folks who work on them (on the ground and in the air)

Farhad Gulemov wrote:

All of which point to one thing: notin' wrong with Klimov or Mil, everything wrong with the politicians who put them in impossible conditions(not to mention 2 decades of utter chaos under Gorbi and Boris)

Plenty wrong with Oboronprom, they have had their coffers stoked with export orders and they still require bailouts. They just had a 21.5 billion bond offering and they can't come up with 600 million rubles for engine development. Who is running this company... clowns.

Yep. My reference was not about giving money to Oboronprom, but to the Russian military so they can finally have semi-decent conditions and means to maintain their birds and pay the folks who work on them (on the ground and in the air)

Don't make a bit of difference if you don't get the supply chain working.

The problem with buying western engines is that if you want to upgrade the Mi-26 you will need a minimum of 4 western engines to (under) power it.

The Mi-17 has been upgraded with all sorts of measures including new nose and rear ramp door replacing the clamshell doors.
The fact that the Russian Armed forces have not kept up with the new models is hardly Mils fault.
Equally when developing the Mi-38 there is little reason to rush development when the Mi-17s are still selling well.
Those new western engines will double the cost of the aircraft and the money saved in fuel will disappear with the cost of the engine and its spare parts.
The new PS-90A engines for the Il-76s cost almost as much as the original aircraft costs.

Regarding the Il-476 I cannot agree, in comparison in western terms it is like the C-17 being cancelled (ie An-70) so the C-130s (An-12) needs a replacement so the solution is some modified C-141s (Il-76).
In other words we are talking about light tactical transports (An-12s and C-130s) that were to be replaced with strategic light transports (An-70 and C-17) but due to their unavailability modifying strategic medium transports (Il-76 and C-141) to perform the role.
The An-70 and C-17 certainly blur the distinction between tactical transport and strategic medium transport but where the C-141 is unpopular the Il-76 is actually very good at what it does and with an upgrade it will be even better.

The point is that the Russian AF has a fleet of An-124s, Il-76s, and An-12s. The An-70s will replace the An-12s but will not replace the Il-76s or the An-124s.
This might reduce the number of Il-476s they will buy.
At the end of the day you have a variety of tools to do the job. The An-70 better fills the role of the An-12 than the Il-476 would have.

It is like getting rid of light helos like the Mi-2 and doing everything with Mi-8s and Mi-17s. Delivering 50kgs of mail to a hilltop base surrounded by barbed wire and landmines with an Mi-8 when an ANSAT or Ka-60 or Mi-34 could have done the job means using the wrong tool for the job. The job gets done but not so efficiently as it could have been done.

Vladimir79 wrote:Don't make a bit of difference if you don't get the supply chain working.

and you want to do that how exactly? by purchasing French engines?

I don't think so.

GarryB wrote:The Mi-17 has been upgraded with all sorts of measures including new nose and rear ramp door replacing the clamshell doors. The fact that the Russian Armed forces have not kept up with the new models is hardly Mils fault. Equally when developing the Mi-38 there is little reason to rush development when the Mi-17s are still selling well. Those new western engines will double the cost of the aircraft and the money saved in fuel will disappear with the cost of the engine and its spare parts.

Yep, not only with the TOC go up, such a purchase will hurt Klimov exactly when what they need is support. The kind of short-term quickfix which hurts the country long term and makes Russia dependent on the West with its screw-up politics, sanctions, etc.

GarryB wrote:The problem with buying western engines is that if you want to upgrade the Mi-26 you will need a minimum of 4 western engines to (under) power it.

France is already in negotiations for buying Mi-26T, of which Turbomeca will redesign the Lotarev turboshafts and Thales will modernise its avionics. There could be a big market for this in Europe as several NATO countries have expressed interest. Just another project we can't get off the ground without France.

The fact that the Russian Armed forces have not kept up with the new models is hardly Mils fault.

The fact that we can't develop a helicopter without a JV with France is their fault.

Equally when developing the Mi-38 there is little reason to rush development when the Mi-17s are still selling well.

Thats the same trash talk that has kept our industry down for the last 15 years. When there is no innovation you die.

Those new western engines will double the cost of the aircraft and the money saved in fuel will disappear with the cost of the engine and its spare parts.

Turbomeca engines are now cheaper than Russian ones thanks to sky-rocket inflation in the MIC.

The new PS-90A engines for the Il-76s cost almost as much as the original aircraft costs.

Thats what you get when you have 13% annual inflation.

Regarding the Il-476 I cannot agree, in comparison in western terms it is like the C-17 being cancelled (ie An-70) so the C-130s (An-12) needs a replacement so the solution is some modified C-141s (Il-76).
In other words we are talking about light tactical transports (An-12s and C-130s) that were to be replaced with strategic light transports (An-70 and C-17) but due to their unavailability modifying strategic medium transports (Il-76 and C-141) to perform the role.
The An-70 and C-17 certainly blur the distinction between tactical transport and strategic medium transport but where the C-141 is unpopular the Il-76 is actually very good at what it does and with an upgrade it will be even better.

The Il-76 is closer to the An-70 in terms of capability than any other aircraft. It has already been stated that was the reason we would not fund An-70 the last time. The lighter transports will be replaced by Il-214.

The point is that the Russian AF has a fleet of An-124s, Il-76s, and An-12s. The An-70s will replace the An-12s but will not replace the Il-76s or the An-124s.

Il-214s are to replace An-12, Il-112V is to replace An-26. Il-476 is to replace Il-76 and An-22. There is nothing to replace An-124 except An-124-300 which is to be produced only in Russia. An-70 is a competitor for Il-76 and An-22 replacement. The 476 was already set to take this role to be completely independent from Ukraine. Now we want to take over Antonova and rely on their designs for An-148 and convert into a MTA that will compete with Il-214. Then they already have the An-140 which with a rear door would compete with Il-112V. So buying Antonova to accept their aircraft pretty much puts the Ilyushin Design Bureau out of a job. Also knocks Sukhoi out of the commercial airline business.

This might reduce the number of Il-476s they will buy.
At the end of the day you have a variety of tools to do the job. The An-70 better fills the role of the An-12 than the Il-476 would have.

The Il-214s do the job better than An-70, 70 is overkill for that role.

It is like getting rid of light helos like the Mi-2 and doing everything with Mi-8s and Mi-17s. Delivering 50kgs of mail to a hilltop base surrounded by barbed wire and landmines with an Mi-8 when an ANSAT or Ka-60 or Mi-34 could have done the job means using the wrong tool for the job. The job gets done but not so efficiently as it could have been done.

You forgot half the aircraft procurement plan.

Farhad Gulemov wrote:

and you want to do that how exactly? by purchasing French engines?

I don't think so.

I think so, Eurocopter suppliers are far more reliable than Russian. We sit here fearing some kind of sanctions that never come yet when it is time for the supply chain to get cranking they fail.

GarryB wrote:The Mi-17 has been upgraded with all sorts of measures including new nose and rear ramp door replacing the clamshell doors. The fact that the Russian Armed forces have not kept up with the new models is hardly Mils fault. Equally when developing the Mi-38 there is little reason to rush development when the Mi-17s are still selling well. Those new western engines will double the cost of the aircraft and the money saved in fuel will disappear with the cost of the engine and its spare parts.

Turbomeca engines are cheaper than Klimov. The cost of production has hit the MIC hard. The fact Mil and the rest of Russian Helicopters JSC hasn't kept up despite having decent sales is their own fault. Mainly the fault of Klimov but a unified company has to take the fall. The Mi-38 would have been here by now if we hadn't approached a US company for engines, now that was stupid. If we hadn't been so in bed with the Chinese Mi-38 would be flying on Turbomecas today. Don't forget Mi-38 wasn't souly designed by Mil, it was a joint project with Eurocopter until they pulled out with the engine IP suspicions. Mi-38 wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Eurocopter. The thing was called Euromil Mi-38, not Mil Mi-38.

Yep, not only with the TOC go up, such a purchase will hurt Klimov exactly when what they need is support. The kind of short-term quickfix which hurts the country long term and makes Russia dependent on the West with its screw-up politics, sanctions, etc.

What support do they need, they just got a 21.5 billion bailout. Maybe throw another 100 billion at it? Throwing good money after bad is never the answer. That is a quick fix that fixes nothing. The more we turn to France the more they will be tied to us, India pretty much has us by the balls. If we make France our primary supplier for Western tech, we can do the same to them.

Vladimir79 wrote:Turbomeca engines are cheaper than Klimov.

where did you get this info? can you provide a source please?

Vladimir79 wrote:Throwing good money after bad is never the answer. That is a quick fix that fixes nothing.

As opposed to simply letting key national defense industries die while Russian money goes aborad you mean? That is a basic fallacy of all free market advocates *even* with the nationally produced good is inferior in quality. Look at how the Japanese and Koreans built up their entire industry after WWII or, for that matter, how the USA built its entire economy: by protecting its weaker and non-competitive industries until they were fully competitive. Yeah - now they talk about "free markets" and no barrier, but they do that now that *they* have the edge. Russian companies such as Klimov (and many others) have somehow managed to survive the Soviet system which produced, organized and staffed them, then they had to survive the utter and absolute anarchy and chaos of the years of "democracy" under Eltsin, and now folks like you have no more need for them and what to buy aboard claimning that makes good economic sense, that it gets you a better helicopter, costs less money and creates partnerships with foreign firms. I do see how it would help Western companies drive the last nail in the coffin of a Russian competitor, I see how it opens yet another market for them, and I see how the folks in Russia who would push for such a deal would benefit from it. What I fail to see is how Russia, in the long term, benefits from loosing Klimov along with the rest of is ailing military-technological base.

Today - Klimov. Who goes on the chopping block of economic expediency next?

Russia today has only two crutches to stand on: raw materials and military technologies, and the latter is still struggling. If Russians simply give up on it, then the entire country will face an "African" future as a provider of natural ressources and nothing much else.

За державу не обидно?

France is already in negotiations for buying Mi-26T, of which Turbomeca will redesign the Lotarev turboshafts and Thales will modernise its avionics. There could be a big market for this in Europe as several NATO countries have expressed interest. Just another project we can't get off the ground without France.

France? Germany makes good engines too. Why limit yourself to one source?

And Mil was already developing an improved model of the Mi-26 for western use.
As shown with your firefighting Amphibian aircraft like the A-40 and Be-200, Europe likes them and they can do the job, but it works out much cheaper to hire them when you need them rather than actually buy any.

I feel sorry for the Russian military because when they start getting westernised equipment they are going to find that those nice expensive aircraft hangars in the west are not for show... western stuff doesn't like being left outside in non airconditioned hangars over winter. Having an expensive multi million dollar helicopter that is used for transport in a third world country costs a lot more to support when you need university educated technicians to support its operations.
Sometimes sophisticated is just a pain in the a$$.

The fact that we can't develop a helicopter without a JV with France is their fault.

They have developed lots of helos on their own. The problem is created when the Russian government expects them to develop helos without funding and without buying their products with no guarantee they will buy anything that results.

Thats the same trash talk that has kept our industry down for the last 15 years. When there is no innovation you die.

But the fact that the Mi-38 exists suggests there is innovation. What is clear however is that for the customers the Mi-38 is no enough of an improvement to warrant wanting to buy it. The existing product does the job and if you have a look at current model Mi-17s you will see they are different to the original models and again the fact that the VDV are not using them is lack of orders, not Mils fault.

Turbomeca engines are now cheaper than Russian ones thanks to sky-rocket inflation in the MIC.

So saving a little money buying foreign engines is sensible in your opinion?
I guess the solution for Mil is to dump Klimov and Motor Sich as engine suppliers and buy foreign. Klimov will then obviously have to find ways to cut costs and the obvious option is to move the factory to a country where labour costs are cheaper... like China.
Is that really a good solution in the long run?
Buying Russian products might cost more but the money is being spent inside the Russian economy at least.

Thats what you get when you have 13% annual inflation.

Inflation has nothing to do with it, the problem is that the modernisation uses new and expensive materials... like western engines do, to burn hotter, to last longer, to use less fuel, to generate more power, to create less noise.
The price of the engines went from about 400,000 per engine to about 6 million per engine. Multiply that by four engines and it is expensive even if the performance is improved.
For something like the A-42 Albatross it means the original 14 ton engines can be replaced with new expensive 16 ton thrust engines and the auxiliary thrust extra two engines for takeoff can be removed, saving a lot of dead weight, but for Il-76s it would take a while before the savings in fuel were realised.
For military aircraft it would be hard to justify as they are exempt from noise limits at european airports.

The Il-76 is closer to the An-70 in terms of capability than any other aircraft. It has already been stated that was the reason we would not fund An-70 the last time. The lighter transports will be replaced by Il-214.

My understanding of the An-70 was that it would replace the An-12 with an aircraft that could (unlike the An-12) carry a MBT. Therefore the An-70 was designed to carry up to 49 tons. The C-17 was intended for a similar role within the US military but required more payload because Abrams tanks are heavy.
The idea of using the An-70 as a replacement for the An-12s was so the Il-76s are freed up for transporting other larger bulkier things in times when armoured units have to be moved quickly by air.
The An-70 can be comparable to payload with the older model Il-76 but the Il-76 can fly much further. When carrying An-12 level payloads the An-70 has Il-76 like range (ie strategic rather than theatre).
The Il-476 will likely have a payload 20-30 tons heavier than the An-70 and still have the fuel to be a strategic transport.

I should know I am from New Zealand. We have the C-130 transport. It was sold and talked about as a strategic transport, but at prop speeds with an unpressurised cabin you can't fly over weather, you have to fly through it, and with any where near full payload flight range is not strategic at all.
I suspect the very similar An-12 shares these problems.

Now we want to take over Antonova and rely on their designs for An-148 and convert into a MTA that will compete with Il-214.

Where did the Russian government say that Antonov designs will take priority over Russian designs?
This just means more competition for Russian companies... which should be something good.

Anyway... buying from the Ukraine or buying from France... doesn't make much difference does it?

So buying Antonova to accept their aircraft pretty much puts the Ilyushin Design Bureau out of a job.

Not out of a job... makes them work harder for their share of the market.

Also knocks Sukhoi out of the commercial airline business.

They have fingers in many pies and I am sure they have orders for Superjets a plenty.

But if their plane is not good enough to compete with something from Antonov... perhaps they should form a joint venture with Antonov?

The Il-214s do the job better than An-70, 70 is overkill for that role.

And the guys in your military placing orders wont see things that way too?

I think so, Eurocopter suppliers are far more reliable than Russian. We sit here fearing some kind of sanctions that never come yet when it is time for the supply chain to get cranking they fail.

You have said it yourself however that orders have been promised for years now and reequipping the armed forces has been on the schedule for many years yet no money is actually changing hands.
Money doesn't solve all problems instantly, though having too much money is a problem I would like to suffer from.
When production has been very small batches for foreign orders when you can get them, if you can get them, and even then those orders might not include products from all your normal suppliers then the Russian government again saying it will start rebuilding the military is hardly a call to action.
Lets see the money first.
Then when you have seen the money you need to equip the factories with modern tools to do a good job. You need to hire workers, train them. Buy materials and order parts you will need and subcontractors is another name for unreliable. With money in hand things can go faster, but that costs more.

And before you say it the solution isn't just buy foreign. Orders wont come any quicker from overseas, and even if they do you still have the unemployment and out of date factories you had before you made the orders.
Very simply the patient has been in a coma for almost two decades with minimal treatment and indeed a lot of neglect. He wont be taking part in marathons any time soon, the process will start with proper nutrition. Then some exercise therapy will help those shrunken muscles. Hiring a foreign runner is an option but unless you see a marathon you have to run any time soon it makes more sense to use the Russian guy rather than hire mercenaries.

The cost of production has hit the MIC hard.

As any normal person would expect it to under the circumstances. Tubomecca have been getting orders from its own government as well as export orders, why shouldn't they be in good shape?

The fact Mil and the rest of Russian Helicopters JSC hasn't kept up despite having decent sales is their own fault. Mainly the fault of Klimov but a unified company has to take the fall.

And for the failure of the Russian military in the first Chechen conflict should all of the Russian armed forces have been held accountable and sacked?
We call it throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Throwing the good and the bad out is pretty dumb.
As dumb as blaming all of Russias Armed forces for what happened in Chechnia.

The Mi-38 would have been here by now if we hadn't approached a US company for engines, now that was stupid.

They were following your model. They recognised their engines weren't up to scratch and they went to the west for new engines. It seems their mistake in your opinion was they went US instead of French.

The real problem was that if you look at the specs the Mi-38 isn't really a generational step above the Mi-17 so it really probably isn't worth developing further.

The more we turn to France the more they will be tied to us, India pretty much has us by the balls. If we make France our primary supplier for Western tech, we can do the same to them.

Except it works both ways... you say India has Russia by the balls, when in fact you could easily say the same to India. You want France by the balls? Try it and you will find they have no balls. Try to use any leverage you think you might have with them and see how far that gets you.

There is enough competition in Russia, except perhaps within armoured vehicle production... and whose fault is that, to serve Russian interests. If one engine maker can't meet the requirements then there are others that can try. Going offshore should be an exception rather than a rule if you want your own healthy MIC.
You obviously have a low opinion of your own MIC so when it has completely disappeared or moved to China I am sure the French will have you by the balls as your only source of equipment.

Oh look, now France is moving further into civil aviation...

Russian Technologies and Thales will create a joint venture for development in civil aviation


MOSCOW, April 26 - RIA Novosti. State corporation Russian Technologies and the French company Thales, an international leader in the manufacture of electronic systems for defense, aerospace and security industry, will create one or several joint ventures for development in the field of civil aviation. The parties signed an addition to the memorandum of partnership and cooperation on November 27, 2009, reported in the press-service of Russian Technologies.

"Given the interest in long-term mutually beneficial cooperation, guided by the memorandum and articles of the decision of the Steering Group meetings on Feb. 24, 2010, the parties have agreed to undertake the necessary work to create a concern" of Aviation "(part of the Russian Technologies, brings together the aerospace industry industry of the RF System Design and Supply - Ed.) and the Thales joint venture (enterprise). enterprise (s) created for the joint development, production and aftermarket services in the areas of air traffic management and integrated modular avionics for civil aircraft, "- says message.

Memorandum Rostekhnologii and Thales partnership and cooperation signed in November last year, establishes key principles for the parties' cooperation on the exchange and sharing of achievements in the field of high technology in both the civilian and defense sectors.

GC Rostekhnologii established November 23, 2007. Its purpose is to facilitate the development, production and export of hi-tech industrial products by supporting the domestic and external markets of Russian developers and manufacturers of such products, as well as attracting investment.

The company Thales operates 68,000 people in 50 countries, profit for 2008 amounted to 12,7 billion euros.

GarryB wrote:

France? Germany makes good engines too. Why limit yourself to one source?

The only other major European competitor is Rolls-Royce. It will be a cold day in hell before we buy helicopter engines from the UK. P&W in the US has already proven problematic. Even Rolls-Royce has to partner with Turbomeca for alot of their engines. Agusta Westland buys Turbomeca engines since not even Italy makes their own. There isn't any other reliable choice. Some one was stating that Apache's had shit engines, those were GE but Turbomeca even makes the engines for the license produced Apache in Italy. Don't see many problems with those.

western stuff doesn't like being left outside in non airconditioned hangars over winter. Having an expensive multi million dollar helicopter that is used for transport in a third world country costs a lot more to support when you need university educated technicians to support its operations.
Sometimes sophisticated is just a pain in the a$$.

I would hope the hanger wouldn't be air-conditioned in Russian winter.

We have hangers for our helicopters. We don't leave them on the tarmac all year long.

Uni educated technicians... France has their own training programme for their helo techs and it doesn't require a college degree. Indian Dhruv helicopters run on Turbomeca and their education isn't any better than Russia.

They have developed lots of helos on their own. The problem is created when the Russian government expects them to develop helos without funding and without buying their products with no guarantee they will buy anything that results.

RF government will buy it when it is proven to meet the requirements. The problem is created when MIC can't demonstrate a sufficient level of technology.

But the fact that the Mi-38 exists suggests there is innovation. What is clear however is that for the customers the Mi-38 is no enough of an improvement to warrant wanting to buy it. The existing product does the job and if you have a look at current model Mi-17s you will see they are different to the original models and again the fact that the VDV are not using them is lack of orders, not Mils fault.

The Mi-38 was created as a JV with Eurocopter called Euromil... once Eurocopter pulled out, the development stopped. Mil wasn't able to get anything off the ground by themselves.

So saving a little money buying foreign engines is sensible in your opinion?
I guess the solution for Mil is to dump Klimov and Motor Sich as engine suppliers and buy foreign. Klimov will then obviously have to find ways to cut costs and the obvious option is to move the factory to a country where labour costs are cheaper... like China.
Is that really a good solution in the long run?
Buying Russian products might cost more but the money is being spent inside the Russian economy at least.

It not only saves money in the short term, it saves in the long term on maintenance and fuel consumption which increases marketability of the products. Our engines do not meet FAA and JAA safety standards, more countries outside of the West are adopting these standards as a global one and pushes our old aircraft out of the market.

Klimov clearly needs to find more efficient methods of production, wages are already low enough, it needs to be retooled which is being accomplished with license production of French engines. This keeps Klimov in business and jobs in the RF. If we didn't do this export orders for Russian helicopter will become barred in most nations and they will certainly go out of business.

Inflation has nothing to do with it, the problem is that the modernisation uses new and expensive materials... like western engines do, to burn hotter, to last longer, to use less fuel, to generate more power, to create less noise.
The price of the engines went from about 400,000 per engine to about 6 million per engine. Multiply that by four engines and it is expensive even if the performance is improved.
For something like the A-42 Albatross it means the original 14 ton engines can be replaced with new expensive 16 ton thrust engines and the auxiliary thrust extra two engines for takeoff can be removed, saving a lot of dead weight, but for Il-76s it would take a while before the savings in fuel were realised.
For military aircraft it would be hard to justify as they are exempt from noise limits at european airports.

We were talking about helicopter engines. But if you want to use commercial turbofans as an example one only has to go to the SSJ and the SaM146. We partnered with France because the Soviet turbofans are gaz guzzlers, maintenance intensive, unreliable, loud, pollute, and just plain obsolete. For the same reason as the helicopters, the FAA and JAA certification will not go on planes with Soviet engines which is limiting our markets more every year.

My understanding of the An-70 was that it would replace the An-12 with an aircraft that could (unlike the An-12) carry a MBT. Therefore the An-70 was designed to carry up to 49 tons. The C-17 was intended for a similar role within the US military but required more payload because Abrams tanks are heavy.
The idea of using the An-70 as a replacement for the An-12s was so the Il-76s are freed up for transporting other larger bulkier things in times when armoured units have to be moved quickly by air.
The An-70 can be comparable to payload with the older model Il-76 but the Il-76 can fly much further. When carrying An-12 level payloads the An-70 has Il-76 like range (ie strategic rather than theatre).
The Il-476 will likely have a payload 20-30 tons heavier than the An-70 and still have the fuel to be a strategic transport.

Il-476 payload is only 5 tonnes better than an An-70 but is $10-15 million cheaper. It had been decided that it was more efficient just to mass produce Candids since it has better payload, more range, and an infrastructure we already have. The one thing in An-70's favour is it will be cheaper to operate and maintain thanks to its turboprops. Now it will be cutting orders for the Il-476 which will increase their overall cost and cutting export possibility.

I should know I am from New Zealand. We have the C-130 transport. It was sold and talked about as a strategic transport, but at prop speeds with an unpressurised cabin you can't fly over weather, you have to fly through it, and with any where near full payload flight range is not strategic at all.
I suspect the very similar An-12 shares these problems.

You should know what being from New Zealand? The only thing NZ MoD knows how to do is cut their dicks off. C-130J has far more range than any previous version, the marketing is determined by how far it can travel. It has a pressurised cabin so what you're saying doesn't make sense.

Where did the Russian government say that Antonov designs will take priority over Russian designs?
This just means more competition for Russian companies... which should be something good.

Anyway... buying from the Ukraine or buying from France... doesn't make much difference does it?

It doesn't have to be said, actions speak louder than words. An-148 is cutting out SSJ and has been complained about by Sukhoi. Its cargo variant will cut out Il-214, An-140 will cut out Il-114V, An-124 is now going to be a joint production cutting jobs from the RF and Antonov is going to take over MS-21 which cuts Irkut.

Competition is good if it is Russian companies fighting for the order, if you want real competition we should open tenders to producers all over the world. I would rather see Airbus providing jobs in Russia than Russian oligarchs shipping production to Ukraine and spending their profits in London.

Not out of a job... makes them work harder for their share of the market.

They are already running out of a job thanks to commercial airlines buying Airbus. We have 160 Airbus flying and orders for 100 more. I would rather have them assembled here in Russia than in France. At least it would provide us with some jobs. Our airlines are hardly buying Russian aircraft because they don't compare to the French.

They have fingers in many pies and I am sure they have orders for Superjets a plenty.

122, half of them leases. This has been cut from 225 as An-148 has taken half of their orders and the longer it takes Saturn to get their half of the engines produced, the more it will lose. Most of the orders for SSJ-100 are outside the RF, most of the orders for An-148 are inside the RF. They are cutting our own domestic market.

Some one was stating that Apache's had shit engines, those were GE but Turbomeca even makes the engines for the license produced Apache in Italy. Don't see many problems with those.

I have a lot of respect for the Apache, it is a very capable aircraft, but it does have a reputation for high maintainence and being a bit of a Hanger Queen.

I would hope the hanger wouldn't be air-conditioned in Russian winter.

I mean full environmental controls, ie heated in summer, cooled in winter, humidity and dust levels controlled.

Also during peacetime fighter aircraft limited to 4g manouvers and not allowed to fly low and fast due to stresses it puts on airframe. No flying fast or high either for the same reasons. You don't think long engine and airframe lives in the west come from thin air?

We have hangers for our helicopters. We don't leave them on the tarmac all year long.

Do you have enough hangers? Your next generation of aircraft will all start needing much more care than they have been getting.

RF government will buy it when it is proven to meet the requirements. The problem is created when MIC can't demonstrate a sufficient level of technology.

This is the chicken and the egg problem... with no sizable orders for the last 2 decades how do Russian companies fund a sufficient level of technology?
Who has told them what that level is? Are they to compete with the best companies in the world? Is that logical to expect a company with no internal market for 20 years to compete with the worlds best?
That sort of thinking will destroy your MIC.

The Mi-38 was created as a JV with Eurocopter called Euromil... once Eurocopter pulled out, the development stopped. Mil wasn't able to get anything off the ground by themselves.

It was a replacement for the Mi-8, Mi-18 doesn't sound much more than the Mi-17, and Mi-28 was already taken so Mi-38 sounds like the next available code for whatever Mil was planning, with or without European help. European help only became necessary because of lack of government funding. It is was and will be a Mil project.

It not only saves money in the short term, it saves in the long term on maintenance and fuel consumption which increases marketability of the products.

It doesn't save any money. You are spending money in another economy. Your profits are going to France.
You are talking about military aircraft here, that is what the Russian military should concern itself with, an civil aircraft construction is none of its business.

It is not the role of Russian military spending to reform the Russian Aviation Industry.

You talk about free market forces and then you talk about forcing Russian companies into joint ventures with French companies.
It is as hippocritical is George W Bush talking about bringing democracy to the middle east.

Our engines do not meet FAA and JAA safety standards, more countries outside of the West are adopting these standards as a global one and pushes our old aircraft out of the market.

It would be very simple to apply new safety standards to existing engines and systems. There is no need to change engines to comply.

Klimov clearly needs to find more efficient methods of production, wages are already low enough, it needs to be retooled which is being accomplished with license production of French engines.

They could be retooling with new equipment to build their own engines, there is no need to waste money on French models.

If we didn't do this export orders for Russian helicopter will become barred in most nations and they will certainly go out of business.

There is no reason why Russian engine makers cannot modify their engines to meet any new standard. The PS-90A is an example of an engine (D-30) modified to meet and exceed western standards for use in the west. The problem is that to meet those standards the engine becomes expensive, like western engines and the thing that made Russian products interesting (ie their lower cost) is gone so there is no longer any point in buying Russian... so there goes your market.

Licence production makes sense for the country that licence produces the product because they can absorb the increased cost of the product because of cheaper local manufacture. Sold to third parties however most licence agreements increase the royalties and even include clauses that prohibit third party sales.
Turbomeca will not want competition against its own helos in foreign markets from Russian engine makers any more than Sukhoi wants chinese flanker knockoffs to compete with.

For the same reason as the helicopters, the FAA and JAA certification will not go on planes with Soviet engines which is limiting our markets more every year.

The biggest threat to your markets is the fact that eastern europe is now part of NATO, and most is hostile to Russia and wouldn't buy anything from you unless they had a gun to their heads. They would rather buy worn out second or third hand F-16s than even consider a new Mig or Sukhoi.

Il-476 payload is only 5 tonnes better than an An-70 but is $10-15 million cheaper. It had been decided that it was more efficient just to mass produce Candids since it has better payload, more range, and an infrastructure we already have. The one thing in An-70's favour is it will be cheaper to operate and maintain thanks to its turboprops. Now it will be cutting orders for the Il-476 which will increase their overall cost and cutting export possibility.

Are you suggesting the Il-476 will carry 52 tons?
The Il-76MF can already carry 60 tons.

The An-70 can carry a max design load of 47 tons and when taking off from a 1.8km concrete runway can carry that 47 ton load 1,350km.
The Il-76MF can carry a 55 ton payload 5,550km.
I would expect the Il-476 to be able to do even better with an all new wing and new avionics etc etc.

You should know what being from New Zealand? The only thing NZ MoD knows how to do is cut their dicks off. C-130J has far more range than any previous version, the marketing is determined by how far it can travel. It has a pressurised cabin so what you're saying doesn't make sense.

The C-130 was sold as a strategic light transport. It is not. The J is as expensive as an Il-76 and not as capable. We couldn't even fly one of our LAV IIIs to Australia in a C-130, it doesn't have the range. Buying a new C-130J would be a complete waste of money and time. The cost of air deploying armour is enormous and we would spend more on aircraft than we would armour. We currently and always have shipped our armour where it is needed and that is not going to change any time soon.

It doesn't have to be said, actions speak louder than words. An-148 is cutting out SSJ and has been complained about by Sukhoi. Its cargo variant will cut out Il-214, An-140 will cut out Il-114V, An-124 is now going to be a joint production cutting jobs from the RF and Antonov is going to take over MS-21 which cuts Irkut.

The Russian government is getting 51% of Antonov. They have stated they want the An-70 in Russian AF colours. What makes you think any other Antonov product will enter Russian service?
You have said that Klimov can go screw itself unless it drops its own line of engines and starts licence producing french engines.
If you don't care about a Russian company why should you care about a Ukrainian one?
Controlling shares means that the Russian government could simply run it into the ground and declare it insolvent and destroy the company.
It could equally shift internal funds to fund projects Russia wants it to develop and starve other projects it doesn't want to come to fruition.

Competition is good if it is Russian companies fighting for the order, if you want real competition we should open tenders to producers all over the world.

But Russia owns 51% of Antonov... it is now a Russian owned company.

Most of the orders for SSJ-100 are outside the RF, most of the orders for An-148 are inside the RF. They are cutting our own domestic market.

So now you control Antonov... you can do something about that.

The Russian government isn't likely to get Antonova because Ukraine is happy with JVs. They already got their gaz deal with the Crimea basing agreement. Nothing left to offer.

Vladimir79 wrote:The Russian government isn't likely to get Antonova because Ukraine is happy with JVs. They already got their gaz deal with the Crimea basing agreement. Nothing left to offer.

Ah Vlad, bad news!

Russian Defense Ministry plans to order An-124, An-70 transport aircraft
RIA Novosti

13:2126/05/2010 MOSCOW, May 26 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Defense Ministry intends to order An-124 and An-70 military transport aircraft under the new state arms procurement program for 2011-2020, Airborne Troops Commander Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov said on Wednesday.

"While working under the state program, we have submitted our proposals," Shamanov said.

He said the Airborne Troops had ordered 40 An-70s aircraft, but he did not specify the number of An-124s ordered by his military unit.

There are up to 300 transport aircraft in service with the Russian Air Force, including, among others, An-12, An-70 and An-124 Ruslan strategic heavy airlift transport aircraft.

The An-70 is a medium-range turboprop military transport plane developed by Ukraine's Antonov design bureau. The Antonov company first tested a flying prototype of the An-70 in 1994, but a lack of Ukrainian state funds, and political disputes between Moscow and Kiev have prevented large-scale production of the aircraft.

The recent thaw in Russian-Ukrainian relations saw Moscow renew long-stalled funding to Ukraine for eventual joint production of the airplane.

The An-70 is due to occupy the An-12's niche.

The An-124, that can be used both for domestic and military purposes, was designed by the Antonov Design Bureau in 1982, and was produced in Ukraine's Kiev and Russia's Ulyanovsk until 1995. The plane has a maximum payload of 150 metric tons with a flight range of around 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles).

The cargo jet is the world's third largest after the An-225 and the Airbus A380F.

Russia and Ukraine reached a preliminary agreement to resume production of the An-124 in April 2008.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100526-rianovosti03.htm

Well then if Russia doesn't own Antonov then they are not obliged to buy all their aircraft.
They originally planned to buy An-70s to replace the An-12, and now they can do that, but the An-124 can be produced in Russia, as can most of the other transport aircraft they will need to buy over the next 10-20 years.

There are up to 300 transport aircraft in service with the Russian Air Force, including, among others, An-12, An-70 and An-124 Ruslan strategic heavy airlift transport aircraft.

Currently there are no An-70s in service anywhere. This part of the article is wrong.

Earlier plans were for Il-476s to be built in fairly large numbers and for An-124s to be built as well to increase the cargo capacity of the Russian Armed forces. Now that things are getting into service it makes sense to upgrade your ability to transport material around the place.

With better terms between the Russian and Ukrainian government I think we will see An-70s being bought in leiu of a few Il-476s to replace the large numbers of An-12s that need to be replaced. I think the An-70 will be a better replacement for the An-12 than the Il-476 will, but I think the Il-476 will be an excellent replacement for the in service Il-76 aircraft and also be a very attractive alternative option for some countries who only have the C-17 as an alternative.

In fact if I was India i would do everything I could to back out of the 2.2 billion dollar deal with the US for 10 C-17s and try to get Il-476s instead. Last I looked the Il-476 was going to be about 80-90 million dollars each, so if you need 10 aircraft that means worst case at 100 million per plane you get 1.2 billion dollars change!

Since 40 An-70 is planned to be purchase as per latest news , Can any one tell me what advantage An-70 offers over modernised IL-76 ?

Crew for An-70 military transport plane to be trained in Russia

The crew members for the new An-70 military transport aircraft, jointly developed by Russia and Ukraine, will be trained in Russia, the commander of transport aviation said on Monday.

"Since the production of the aircraft is planned to take place in Russia, it is logical that the crew will undergo the theoretical and practical training here," Lt. Gen. Viktor Kachalkin said.

Russia's transport aviation commander said the crew and engineering staff would at first be trained at the aircraft production plants then at airfields.

Kachalkin also said the first An-70s will be delivered to the Tverskaya airbase, near Moscow.

The estimated date for the first shipment of one or two aircraft is 2014.

There are up to 300 transport aircraft in service with the Russian Air Force, including An-12 (NATO reporting name Cub), An-72 (Coaler) and An-124 Ruslan (Condor) strategic heavy airlift transport aircraft.

The An-70 is a medium-range turboprop military transport plane developed by Ukraine's Antonov design bureau. The Antonov company first tested a flying prototype of the An-70 in 1994, but a lack of Ukrainian state funds, and political disputes between Moscow and Kiev have prevented large-scale production of the aircraft.

The recent thaw in Russian-Ukrainian relations saw Moscow renew long-stalled funding to Ukraine for eventual joint production of the airplane.

The An-70 is intended to replace An-12 and Ilyushin Il-76 (Candid) aircraft currently in service.

Russian Airborne Troops Commander Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov said last week that his service had ordered 40 An-70 aircraft under the new state arms procurement program for 2011-2020.

It is a smaller tactical transport whose payload has grown into the medium transport class.
The An-70 is like a C-130 or an A400M and should be considered a tactical transport.
This tactical transport however has its max weight increased from the old 20 tons of the C-130/An-12 to high enough to actually being able to carry a single MBT at 47 tons but the An-70 can only carry such a payload 1,350km from a 1.8km concrete runway.

The only areas it will replace the Il-76 is probably in the paratroop dropping role, and even then it will only be old Il-76s it replaces.

The Il-76M and Il-76MD both have payloads of 47 tons, though they have about three to four times the flight range respectively, of the An-70 with such a load.

The Il-76MF increases max payload to 60 tons and can carry a 55 ton payload 5,550km.

What the article doesn't say is that the Il-476 is going into production too and will probably have further improvements in payload and flight range, and of course updated cockpit and perhaps crew numbers reduced to two.
The An-70 is primarily a replacement for the An-12 with higher speed, higher payload, and longer range with reduced payloads.

More likely than not the An-70, and definitely the An-124s, and Il-476s will be built in Russia.

It is a bit like talk about the Su-34. It is supposed to replace the Su-24, the Tu-16 and the Tu-22M3. In reality it can easily replace the Su-24 but would be hard pressed to do everything the Tu-22M3 could do simply because the Tu-22M3 is a much larger machine. I would like to see any Su-34 carry 24 tons of bombs to targets 2,000km from base and back without inflight refuelling.

The An-70 is another tool for the Russian armed forces. If they need to take 20 tons 6,000km their only option used to be the Il-76. Now it will be either an An-70 or an Il-76. If they need to shift 47 tons more than 2,000km or so then the only real option is still the Il-76.
It comes down to what is available at the time but having the An-70 as well as Il-476s is better for the Russian AF and VDV than having some very old An-12s and old Il-76s. This is of course my opinion based on performance specs of both aircraft types.

GarryB thanks for the views ,it seems the turboprop An-70 will have advantage in lower operating cost for short distance transport compared to the turbofan IL-476 which will have its advantage in operating at long range at high altitude.

The 40 An-70 purchase seems like a political decision due to improving relations between Russia and Ukraine since the An-70 was not on purchase agenda during the Orange regime.

The An-70 was always a serious program to replace the in service An-12s.
With the Ukraine looking to join NATO and at the same time turn away from Russia the deal became impossible for the Russians.
A news report I read stated the An-70s for the Russians will be made in Russia and that Russian crews will also be trained in Russia on the aircraft with the first production aircraft expected about 2015 or so.

The An-70 can probably be described as a short range Il-76 or a very long range An-12.

Over short distances it can carry large payloads, or it can be used to carry lots of lighter loads over long distances.

Its flight range with 20 tons from a concrete strip is 7,400km which is actually 200km further than an Il-76MD. From an unpaved strip its range with 20 tons is 4,900km.

It is actually a very good aircraft and will be very useful as it can perform all the roles the An-12 performed and some of the roles the early model Il-76s performed, but with the size of Russia and the number of airbases that have closed there is still plenty of need for Il-476s and An-124s which will also be built.

What did I tell you... more competition from Ukraine.

Ukrainian competitor

Antonov to introduce its new draft of An-178

Negotiations of Russian and Ukrainian aircraft manufacturers to merge not prevent them from remaining competitive. Yesterday the Bureau Antonov submitted a new draft of the transport aircraft An-178, which is already interested in the Indian side. The new aircraft, which will appear in two years, may become an unwitting rival Russian-Indian project military transport aircraft MTA.

As the general designer of the SE Antonov Dmitry Kiva, a new transport plane may appear as early as 2012. "This project is not expensive, we understand that money is not so much, and we plan to use the wing and tail of the AN-158 (modification of the AN-148). But the engine and avionics upgrade, widen the fuselage, make the ramp along with the central plane," - said said. According to Ukrainian experts, the total market for the AN-178 could reach 700-800 aircraft over the next 10-12 years. Cost will be 20-25 million dollars as expected the Ukrainian side, the aircraft may be of interest to the Defense Ministry, airlines Siberia and the Far North.

In addition, according to Dmitry kiva, the company is in talks with India on cooperation in the project. According to the source of RBC daily, the Indian side has sent a request to the SE "Antonov", which expressed its interest in the An-178, which should in future replace the current operating in the country of An-12.

At the same time, Russian aircraft for nearly a decade leading the negotiations with India on joint development of prospective aircraft MTA. During this time the concept has changed from a passenger on military transport. The aircraft will be developed on the basis of the draft Design Bureau. SV Ilyushin Il-214. The first deliveries scheduled for 2014. MTA to replace the AN-12 and U.S. C-130. Estimated capacity - up to 20 tons today, India may buy 45 aircraft, Russia - 100. It is planned that 65% of works on production aircraft will be performed in Russia, 35% - in India.

As President Alexei Fyodorov, UAC, "rejection of the AIT is not possible, because we had gone too far in this project in terms of commitments." According to him, the combination of projects AIT and An-178 when creating export multipurpose transport aircraft possible and reasonable.

AN-178 at the specified characteristics will be very attractive product, which is already interested in the Indian side, said the head of analytical agency "Airport" Oleg Panteleyev. "Before the KLA is a challenge not to lose India as a potential partner and not to turn the draft AIT. Working documents and prototypes is not in any of the programs, but the An-178 draw down a serial An-158 series units," - said the expert. According to him, the willingness SE Antonov An independent fund-178 leads to the fact that the project is much more independent from external factors and is most likely to be implemented faster than the MTA.

Sergei Starikov

http://vpk.name/news/40223_ukrainskii_konkurent.html

Serial production of the An-70 actually run in 2016 - president of KLA


To organize the mass production of military transport aircraft An-70 is really 2016 , but subject to appropriate funding . This was in an interview with the "Comments " said president of the United Aircraft Corporation ( UAC) Alexey Fedorov .

"According to our calculations, the completion of development projects and modernization of production will require at least $ 0.5 billion is extremely rough and preliminary figures. To say exactly , you must have all the documentation , access to which we have no "- he said.

He said the management plans of the Defense Ministry on the procurement of An-70 in 2012, completely unrealistic .

"In our view , the end of development work on the An-70 and its modernization under the requirements of the customer will take at least five years. The aircraft was designed in the 90 's, has been placed on old technologies , which are now no longer used. AN-70 to " digitized , "that is to move the entire working design documentation in the 3D-model , because only in this format we can now organize production " - said president of the KLA .

Also, a top manager said that the second task is to prepare the production and technological equipment . " It also needs to be done almost from scratch. Accessoires airplane Aviant fragmented , it did not make production . At the same time to hold a technical re-equipment of enterprises, introduction of new technology. need to renovate parts, go to the new units and systems "- said A . Fedorov .

Good news for the Il-476.