Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

LMFS wrote:Interview with Alexey Rogozin from Il about the prospects for 2019:

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.ru/https/vpk.name/news/241420_aleksei_rogozin_u_nas_vse_est_chtobyi_perelomit_situaciyu_byistree_menyatsya_i_byit_bolee_effektivnyimi.html

Today, the Il-112V is already preparing for the first flight. Priority directions of development of aviation programs in 2019 will be:

- conduct flight tests of the Il-112V and the launch of the third and fourth cars;

- launch of mass production of wide-body long-haul passenger aircraft Il-96-400M;

- start of the serial production of passenger inter-regional aircraft Il-114-300; - design of medium-sized military transport aircraft Il-276;

- flight tests of the new tanker Il-78M-90A;

- increase in the rate of production of new military transport aircraft Il-76MD-90A;

- a deep modernization of the heavy military transport aircraft Il-76MD to version Il-76MD-M and aircraft-tankers Il-78M to version Il-78M2;

- execution of works on modernization of anti-submarine aircraft Il-38 to version Il-38N;

- work on the creation of super-heavy transport aircraft.

Good!

Sorry for my ignorance but why Russia a country that makes cuttig-edge aircrafts like su-30/35, have difficulties building a light transport aircraft?

DerWolf wrote:Sorry for my ignorance but why Russia a country that makes cuttig-edge aircrafts like su-30/35, have difficulties building a light transport aircraft?

Sukhoi was always 100% russian. While some transport aircraft came from Ukraine during soviet times. So they need to start from 0 with little experience. Just like engines for ships.

For the same reason they had problems with light helicopters and jet trainer aircraft and heavy machine guns and large diesel and gas turbine engines for ships and gas turbine engines for their helicopters.

During the cold war their Mi-2 helos were not made in Russia and nor were their engines, the L-29 jet trainers were not Russian, the Utes HMG was not Russian, and the engines for the conventionally powered ships were not Russian made either. The gas turbine engines for the helos like Hip and Hind and Havoc and Hokum were made in the Ukraine at Motor Sich.

Some of the problems were fixed relatively quickly like the jet trainers and the heavy machine gun...Yak-130 and Kord are modern capable systems as good as any available any where else in the world. Klimov has now replaced Motor Sich in terms of making helicopter engines too and various companies have made strides in replacing material that formerly came from other Soviet states or the former Warsaw Pact states.

Most of their optics came from Belarus, engines and rocket components and missile sensors came from the Ukraine, and of course Antonov was a major supplier of transport aircraft to the entire eastern block.

It would be like Boeing suddenly becoming a Canadian company and the US deciding it needs new American aircraft to replace all its Boeings because it does not want to pay Canadian Dollars to operate its aircraft fleet...

Boeing has dominated the US market for so long there is little to no internal competition within the US market, so if Boeing could not be used then the US would have serious problems.

As I mentioned Klimov has stepped up in making helicopter engines and I believe Saturn are making ship propulsion systems, but that is in addition to what they already make so it is an expansion of their product range and production capacity... trying to replace a production capacity developed over decades for the job it is doing.

Ironically a lot of the Russian companies that have entered the market to replace now foreign companies have the advantage of starting from scratch with new technology, so while it takes a little while, the final product can be an improvement over what it is replacing.

New night vision equipment Russian companies are introducing to replace equipment from Belarus is very much comparable to western equipment and has had a lot of investment in new technology, unlike the Belarussian companies.

I remember not that long ago a similar question... why doesn't Russia have UAVs like America and Israel does when they can make modern new aircraft too.

A capability does not just fall from the sky... Israel and the US have been spending enormous amounts of money and time on UAVs over the last 3-4 decades trying to create useful systems, so the idea that Russia can just decide to build UAVs and for that to happen over night is absurd.

There are a range of technologies that need to be invented and developed to operate UAVs including high quality cameras and other sensors and stabilisation systems as well as datalinks for communication and control just to start with... then you have a whole range of new small engine types and other propulsion and power generation systems as well as power management systems for electric models.

It is not just the case of taking a pilot out of a plane and calling it a UAV...

Well if the flying example has weight balance problems then there is no point in testing it for flight performance and optimising the flight control systems... might as well use it for systems integration.

Two modernized Il-76MD-M
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3505645.html

In October 2016, PJSC Aviation Complex named after S.V. Ilyushin ”was awarded a contract with the Ministry of Defense to modernize the first three Il-76MD aircraft to the level of Il-76MD-M, with delivery until the end of 2018. The first on this contract was delivered to the VKS of Russia on March 13, 2018 the prototype IL-76MD-M (RF-76746), modified to the appearance of "full configuration" (although it continues to be used in Zhukovsky for testing. Now of the aircraft - RF-78788 and RF-78837. Both of these aircraft are part of the 610th Center for combat use and retraining of the flight crew of the Military Transport Aviation named after Marshal of Aviation NS Skripko in Ivanovo
Earlier it was reported that the Ministry of Defense of Russia plans to modernize 41 combat aircraft Il-76MD combat aircraft to the level of IL-76MD-M. Serial modernization work was supposed to be carried out at aircraft repair plants or at technical aviation bases of the Military Transport Aviation.

.

https://russianplanes.net/regs/RF-78788



https://russianplanes.net/regs/RF-78837

The logical step would be to continue forward with both:

Tu-330
Il-276

They are not redundant. Or in other words, between them the degree of redundance is like between the MS-21 (of the size category of the Tu-330) and the Su-SuperJet (of the size category of the Il-276).

The weak project to forget because it has not a practical payload is:

Il-112

eehnie wrote:The logical step would be to continue forward with both:

Tu-330
Il-276
The weak project to forget because it has not a practical payload is:
Il-112

There's no foreign interest in the Tu-330, so, even if successful, it won't be feasible to spend $Ms on it for less payload as the An-70 that they can get back in a few years with new regime in Kiev.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-330

The Il-112 can be stretched &/ its engines upgraded to increase its payload, which is now what the military wanted.

Fleet of heavy auxiliary aircrafts of the Russian Armed Forces:

Data by weight class for the aircrafts of Russian and Sovietic origin, updated at the begin of 2019 from Russianplanes.net and other complementary sources:

1st Size Category:

-

2nd Size Category:

Active 012 Reserve 014 Production 1984-Today An-124

3rd Size Category:

Active 003 Reserve 002 Production 1979-Today Il-86/80/96
Active 003 Reserve 006 Production 1966-1975 An-22

4th Size Category:

Active 164 Reserve 058 Production 1973-Today Il-76/78/A-50
Active 007 Reserve 003 Production 1966-Today Il-62

5th Size Category:

Active 006 Reserve 000 Production 1990-Today Tu-204/214
Active 020 Reserve 001 Production 1969-Today Tu-154

6th Size Category:

Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 2010-Today Su-Superjet100
Active 035 Reserve 053 Production 1980-Today Mi-26/27
Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1976-2003 Yak-42/142: http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Yakovlev/Yak-42
Active 063 Reserve 094 Production 1964-1989 Tu-134
Active 042 Reserve 007 Production 1959-1985 Il-18/20/22/24
Active 067 Reserve 052 Production 1957-1972 An-10/12

7th Size Category:

Active 033 Reserve 014 Production 1985-Today An-72/71/74
Active 000 Reserve 007 Production 1960-1980 Mi-6/10/22

8th Size Category:

Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 2018-Today Mi-38 (would need to reach around 16500 Kg of Maximum Take-Off Weight)
Active 162 Reserve 230 Production 1962-Today An-24/26/30/32

9th Size Category:

Active 105 Reserve 000 Production 2009-Today Yak-130
Active 140 Reserve 065 Production 1979-Today Ka-27/28/29/31/32

10th Size Category:

Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1993-Today Che-22: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/che22.html

11th Size Category:

Active 050 Reserve 000 Production 2013-Today Mi-Ansat
Active 033 Reserve 029 Production 1966-1993 Mi-2
Active 047 Reserve 048 Production 1950-1991 An-2

12th Size Category:

Active 041 Reserve 000 Production 2004-Today Ka-226

13th Size Category:

Light material not exceeding the size of a car.

The previous data includes all the most modern successfull Russian and Sovietic heavy auxiliary/civil aircrafts and helicopters with production over 50 units, plus the Mi-38, which mass production begins now, is expected to be a success, and has been ordered by the Russian Armed Forces.

Foreign aircrafts that are likely to disappear soon from the Russian Armed forces (by sale, transfer to other governmental ministries or other way):

Active 031 Reserve 070 Production 1970-Today L-410 in the weight class of the Che-22
Active 015 Reserve 000 Production 2009-Today An-148/158/178 in the weignt clas of the An-72/74
Active 009 Reserve 000 Production 1997-Today An-140 in the weight class of the An-24/26/30/32
Active 144 Reserve 000 Production 1977-1998 L-39 in the weight class of the An-2

Green means production available for Russia. Blue means unlikely to reach the Russian Armed Forces. Purple is related with foreign and local aircrafts likely to disappear soon.

Between the 6 biggest categories aircrafts are dominant. Between the following 6 categories the helicopters would be dominant despite to be not present in all the categories, taking into account the success of the Mi-26/27 and the Mi-6/10 (bigger than the success of the An-72/71/74, with higher number of units produced). And in the smallest category trainer aircrafts would be dominant. In the future, for the heavy auxiliary aircrafts I would expect:

- Transport aircrafts to be successful in the 2nd to 6th categories (since 20 tons payload).
- Airliner aircrafts to be successful in the 3rd to 6th categories (since 95-100 passengers + mid range >5000Km).
- Helicopters to be successful in the 6th to 12th categories (until 20 tons payload).
- Trainer aircrafts to be successful in the 9th category.

The success is uncertain, even unlikely, for the rest of the options of heavy auxiliary material. Like overall rule, I would avoid to invest on them.

More explanation about, in the following link:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p75-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#189143

According to it, from a military point, this would be the order of priority for auxiliary aircrafts and helicopters:

0.- Su-SJ100 (I expect some order from the Russian Armed Forces in the short term).

1.- Ka-60/62 (in the Che-22 10th size class with around 2.5 tons payload). Vacant today.
2.- Tu-330 (in the Tu-204/214 5th size class with around 40 tons payload). Vacant today.
3.- Mi-46/AHL (in the Mi-6/10/22 7th size class with around 15 tons payload). Successfull precedent almost retired.
4.- Il-106/PTS Ermak 80 (in the An-22 3rd size class with around 80 tons payload). Successfull precedent almost retired.
5.- Il-276 (in the An-10/12 6th size class with around 20 tons payload).
6.- PTS Ermak 160 (in the An-124 2nd size class with around 160 tons payload).
7.- Tu-304/Frigate Freejet (in the Il-62 4th size class for double configuration: 1 mid passenger capacity + long range, 2 high passenger capacity + mid range).
8.- New Aircraft (in the Il-76/78 Be-A50 4th size class with around 60 tons payload).
9.- CRAIC CR929 (in the Il-86/80/96 3rd size class for high passenger capacity + long range).
10.- Ka-40 Minoga (in the Ka/27/28/29/31/32/35 9th size class with around 5 tons payload).
11.- New Helicopter (in the Mi-26/27 6th size class with around 20 tons payload.
12.- MS-21/Yak-242 (in the Tu-204/214 5th size class for mid passenger capacity + mid range).

Note that the PTS Ermak 240 would come as consecuence of the three sizes philosophy of the PAK-VTA project, but would not be prioritary in my view. The Il-PAK-TA is not in the list because would be for air transport in contested areas.

The Mi-6/10/22 seems exhausted, pending total decommission.
I would expect the An-22 to be used until to be totally exhausted in the short-term.
The An-2/4/6 and the foreing aircrafts need also a plan for total exhaustion.

The last & most recent news that mentioned the Tu-330 was in 2015:
https://www.rbth.com/defence/2015/07/21/russia_looks_to_modernize_indonesian_air_force_47883.html

The Tupolev site doesn't even mention it:
http://www.tupolev.ru/en/military_aviation
http://www.tupolev.ru/en/special_aviation
http://www.tupolev.ru/en/civil_aviation

This is wrong, January 30 2019:

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3512548.html

2. WILL THE KAZAN BILLIONS WILL BECOME ON A NEW AIR TRUCK FOR THE ARMY?

And today such a massive order is more likely than ever for KAZ. “In March, the military will announce a competition for the creation of the SVTS, the medium military transport aircraft,” a source told BUSINESS Online in the aviation industry. - Ilyushin with Il-276 and Tupolev with Tu-330 participate in it. If they win the Tupol, they will make the car in Kazan. ”

...

In favor of "Tu" at the competition can play, firstly, the fact that the project "330" has already been fairly developed, in the mid-90s it was even approved by the military and ready for launch. They say that the Tu-330 was then sacrificed to the advancement of the Ukrainian An-70. This project is now closed for obvious reasons. Secondly, the TU-330 is 70% standardized with the well-tuned civilians in the production of civilian Tu-214, which means minimal technical risk and a reduction in the time required for creation, refinement, as well as the costs of pilot and mass production and training of crews.

Obviously the Tu-330 (35 tons payload) and the Il-276 (20 tons payload) projects, about to be under examination by the Russian Ministry of Defense, are also projects answering to the military demand, are projects answering to the requirements of the Russian Armed Forces.

The position of both projects would not be redundant and seems solid to me, significantly more solid than the position of the Il-112 (5 tons payload) that basically can not move heavy auxiliary material.

The An-70 instead is dead. Now and in the future.

A stretched Il-276 could be made to carry up to 35T, so it's a 50-50 IMO. Tupolev never built a dedicated cargo plane. Time will tell!

They need a competition to ensure every potential product is properly made and tested to a high standard, but to me the Il-276, being a scaled down Il-476 makes rather more sense than the Tupolev.

The Il-112 and Il-114 are both going to be put into production and service because they are needed to replace the An-26 in a widely used light transport role... but we have already discussed this anyway.

Just because an Mi-6 can carry the same payload does not mean they are not needed... a helicopter is much more expensive to operate than a fixed wing aircraft and slower too.

As Tsavo mentions if they want a 35 ton payload class aircraft then the Il-276 could be stretched and adapted for the role... AFAIK the purpose of the competition is to replace the 20 ton payload capacity An-12, so a modern aircraft that has commonality to an existing model (IL-476) makes a lot of sense.

If they want a 35 ton payload capacity transport the early model Il-76 was a 40 ton aircraft, so a Il-476 upgrade with improved but old cheap engines is probably a quicker and cheaper solution...

If you would apply this logic, you would not get a Bumerang to replace a BTR-80...

This is not the right approach.

In the following comment was exposed a more complete analysis

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7684p100-utility-auxilliary-aircrafts-in-ruaf#236180

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:Your list is interesting, but is more a list of all potential aircraft... ignoring what has a chance and what does not.

Instead of taking data from tables, you should be reading up about the planes as well and that would tell you what is a shot in the dark idea with no real chance of becoming a viable alternative, and what was very promising but still likely wont be made, and what is both viable and supported by the people who actually make planes and has actual contracts to be made.

More importantly you need to realise that politics and economics are just as important as performance.

Performance alone would mean the An-70 would already be in full production and in service with the Russian military... they took part in the design and it is pretty much exactly what they wanted... but politics has gotten in the way and now the solution is looking like it is going to be the upgraded Il-476... which was going to be replaced by the An-70.... as the 50 ton payload transport.

Personally I think the Il-476 is a much better aircraft so I don't think it is a bad thing overall, but for the people who were going to earn a living making the aircraft, it might not be such a good thing... but as many of them and those making the engines are Ukrainian and hate Russians, I am not losing sleep over the incompetence of their leadership and the consequences for their country.

No GarryB, no, I ignored not what aircraft has a chance and what not. I just analyzed it:

- Exposing the reality of the Russian Armed forces almost coincident with the successful Russia aircrafts:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p225-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#212784

- Exposing the recent and current reality of the Russian civil market and in which cathegories is the real demand:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7684p75-utility-auxilliary-aircrafts-in-ruaf#234643

- Exposing the reality of the size cathegories that are failing for the different roles, with references to the different cases that succeed not:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p75-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#189143

To note that most of these projects had nice plans that have not been becoming real, and to note that many of these projects are of companies included in the United Aricraft Corporation, but it made not them successfull.

- Exposing also the list of projects with good prospect, which development would be most important in order to complete the current new generation of Russian armament and equipment of the first quarter of the XXI century, in adition to the Mi-38, Yak-152 and the rest of successfull projects of the generation:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032-state-armament-program-2018-2027#204557

eehnie wrote:Ka-60/62 (in the Che-22 10th size class with around 2.5 tons payload)
Tu-330 (in the Tu-204/214 5th size class with around 40 tons payload).
Mi-46/AHL (in the An-72/71/74 7th size class with around 15 tons payload).
Il-106/PTS Ermak 80 (in the An-22 3rd size class with around 80 tons payload).
Il-276 (in the An-10/12 6th size class with around 20 tons payload).
PTS Ermak 160 (in the An-124 2nd size class with around 160 tons payload).
Tu-304/Frigate Freejet (in the Il-62 4th size class for double configuration: 1 mid passenger capacity + long range, 2 high passenger capacity + mid range).
New Aircraft (in the Il-76/78 Be-A50 4th size class with around 60 tons payload).
CRAIC CR929 (in the Il-86/80/96 3rd size class for high passenger capacity + long range).
Ka-40 Minoga (in the Ka/27/28/29/31/32/35 9th size class with around 5 tons payload).
New Helicopter (in the Mi-26/27 6th size class with around 20 tons payload.
MS-21/Yak-242 (in the Tu-204/214 5th size class for mid passenger capacity + mid range).

- Exposing the list of projects of the successfull categories that would be redundant at this point, but have the option of becoming the basis for future developments of the future generation of Russian armament and equipment of the second quarter of the XXI Century:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-state-armament-program-2018-2027#213501

eehnie wrote:Tu-334 (airliner aircraft in the Su-SJ-100 6th size class)
Tu-230 (transport aircraft in the An-10/12 6th size class)
Ka-102 (helicopter in the Mi-6/10/22 7th size class
Ka-92 (helicopter in the Ka-27/28/29/31/32/35 9th size class
Ka-90 (helicopter in the Ka-27/28/29/31/32/35 9th size class
Mi-X1 (helicopter in the Ka-27/28/29/31/32/35 9th size class)
Mi-54 (helicopter in the Mi-Ansat 11th size class)
Ka-118 (helicopter in the Ka-226 12th size class)

At this point the alone aircraft in the successfull categories which development I do not consider conceptually oriented to a modern demand would be the Be A-40/42. And as consequence, in my opinion, is the most likely to fail definitely.

The difference between the number of not successfull projects in the size categories marked as successfull and unsuccessfull for every main role is really big.

- And finally exposing the consequences of the weakest politically influenced contracts:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p125-state-armament-program-2018-2027#234248

Nothing of this is casual, and the Il-112 and the TVS 2DTS have strong market trends against that the gouvernment of Russia is not forced to break entering very likely in economic loses, when they have at this point an alternative offer of competent helicopters that are prefered by the markets and by the Russian Armed Forces. The helicopters have their own flaws for combat purposes, but as  small airliner or transport auxiliary aircrafts are stronger in overall terms.

Taking into account the new projects with good prospect, the gouvernment of Russia has also the option of placing the production of some new aircrafts and helicopters in the factories that today need better options to produce, without affecting to the natural replacement succession of the models produced in other factories (as example it would be logical to assign to VASO Voronezh the production of he CRAIC CR929 as successor of the Il-86/80/96):
- Beriev Taganrog (Aircrafts): Several options, Tu-330, Il-106/PTS Ermak 80, Il-276, Tu-304/Frigate Freejet.
- UZGA Yekaterinburg (Helicopters): Mi-46/AHL for Russian and other export markets.
- Aviakor Samara (Aircrafts): Several options, Tu-330, Il-106/PTS Ermak 80, Il-276, Tu-304/Frigate Freejet.
And very likely Russia will need to find new factories to produce UAVs (including combat UAVs).

And between all the analysis, the second point, where we can see a light overview of the Russian civil market in recent years (that is not different of other markets), is of special interest:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7684p75-utility-auxilliary-aircrafts-in-ruaf#234643

eehnie wrote:TOTAL BY SIZE CATEGORY: Top 10 Airliner + Top 10 Air-Cargo (2017: 83.36% Airliner + 90.99% Air-Cargo market share)
5th Size Category (Tu-204/214): 451
6th Size Category (Su-Superject100): 300
3rd Size Category (Il-86/80/96): 106
4th Size Category (Il-62, Il-76): 84
2nd Size Category (An-124): 58
8th Size Category (An-24/26/30/32): 45
7th Size Category (An-72/71/74): 23
1st zize Category (An-225): 0
9th Size Category (Yak-130): 0
10th Size Category (Che-22, L-410): 0
11th Size Category (An-2/4/6): 0
12th Size Category (Ka-226): 0
13th Size Category (Yak-52): 0

This minimum research is enough to see which are the size categories with stronger demand and with bigger capability of generating revenues for the United Aircraft Corporation. This is a model that not only affects to Russia, is a model shared worldwide. The origin of this model of air transport is based in the costs and profitability, and the cost analysis in the auxiliary air transport is something that the Russian Armed Forces, share with civil companies.

Looking at the data is perfectly fair to consider the Tu-330 (5th size category) and the Il-276 (6th size category) solid projects, not redundant between them and with solid prospect to go forward, while the Il-112 (8th size category) is fairly weaker.

The difference of size between the categories is important. Roughly, in terms of Maximum Take-Off Weight:
5th size category: 76-125 tons
6th size category: 46-75 tons

In the 3rd size category Russia had the An-22, with the Il-106/PTS Ermak 80 in development.
In the 4th size category Russia has the Il-76.
In the 2nd size category Russia has the An-124 with the Il-PTS Ermak 160 in development.

For much smaller and cheaper aircrafts, to have a demand under the demand of the giant and expensive 2nd size category is totally killer. The civil industry, having not civil demand for the Il-112 and Il-114, wants desperately the involvement and funding of the Russian Armed Forces, to keep living the dead. But the Russian Armed Forces really need not to be involved. Today the military air transport role has other requirements and different solutions than in the 1960s and 1970s, and need not to be solved like then, using current cheap clones of outdated solutions rejected at this point by the civil markets. To use the own old aircrafts until exhaustion is correct, but the purchase of current cheap clones of outdated solutions is not. As consequence, do not expect the Russian Armed Forces to fall into this mistake.

For reference:
To note that 1 Tu-330 can do the job of 7 Il-112 in terms of payload, but 7 Il-112 can not do the job of 1 Tu-330.
To note that 1 Il-276 can do the job of 4 Il-112 in terms of payload, but 4 Il-112 can not do the job of 1 Il-276
By the end almost all the loads can be packed and the work with Tu-330 and with Il-276 is significantly cheaper than the work with Il-112, allowing better profitability. And this is why the main operators in the civil markets prefer aircrafts of these size categories. For the loads that can not be packed, the civil markets in Russia prefer helicopters. The Russian Armed Forces are not interested in profitability, but are interested in lower costs of operation, including to avoid unnecessary costs of development, and as consequence have coincident interests with the civil markets.

Other thing is to enter in the development of the replacement of the An-124.

Today, Russia should not fail attending the demand of the main operators of airliner aircrafts for the Top-4 most successfull size categories, and transport aircrafts for the Top-5 most successfull size categories.

Auxiliary aircrafts pending scrapping:



An-8:

https://russianplanes.net/reginfo/106220

https://www.google.com/maps/@60.1177865,30.2032589,48m/data=!3m1!1e3



Tu-124:

https://russianplanes.net/reginfo/32682

https://www.google.com/maps/@69.7608824,61.5598832,67m/data=!3m1!1e3



L-39:

Many still. In 2018 about 1/3 of the remaining units was scrapped.

If you would apply this logic, you would not get a Bumerang to replace a BTR-80...

Which shows your complete misunderstanding of the situation...

You think a Boomerang is a natural replacement for a BTR-80... in most cases of non Army use of the BTR-80, the correct replacement would be the BTR-82, which generally improves most aspects of it without greatly increasing cost or size etc.

In other words the best vehicle to do the work of a BTR-80 would be a BTR-82 most of the time.

For the Russian Army however they are replacing their entire range of vehicles and different forces need different levels of mobility, but pretty improved levels of armour and fire power.

In a normal Russian brigade they will have all sorts of vehicles from BRDMs and BTRs as well as BMPs and T series tanks, as well as BMP and BTR related support vehicles and MTLB related support vehicles etc etc.

Their plan is to replace all those different vehicles with different engines and different transmissions and different wheeled and tracked platforms with one unified vehicle.

In a heavy unit that needs to operate in urban areas and deal with full strength NATO enemies then the vehicle base will be armata, so in that division the BTR-80 will be replaced by armata based troop transports with an external HMG mount or possibly an external gun mount with a 30mm cannon like a BTR-80A.

In a medium unit that operates across rough terrain they will use Kurganets tracked vehicles and a Kurganets vehicle with an external HMG mount or possibly an external gun mount with a 30mm cannon like a BTR-80A will replace the BTR-80.

In a medium unit that operates mainly in urban areas they will use Boomerang wheeled vehicles and a Boomerang vehicle with an external HMG mount or possibly an external gun mount with a 30mm cannon like a BTR-80A will replace the BTR-80.

In a light recon unit that operates mainly in urban areas they will use Typhoon wheeled vehicles and a Typhoon vehicle with an external HMG mount or possibly an external gun mount with a 30mm cannon like a BTR-80A will replace the BTR-80.

However what you have done is you have looked at the payload capacity of the Tu-330 as 35 tons and the payload capacity of the Il-276 at 20 tons or thereabouts and decided that the Tu-330 would be superior.

The thing is that this class of aircraft is supposed to be replacing the 20 ton class An-12, which is why the Il-276 is designed to have that weight capacity, so it is actually a better fit for the job... they might design it so it can carry heavier loads over shorter distances, but even if it has no other advantages the Il-276 is a jet aircraft and will be rather faster than the An-12, which would already make it rather better, but the core of its advantage is that it is Russian.

With this comment you are just making evident, the said in my comment.

With your logic of designing just a clone to replace everything, you never would get a Bumerang APC, neither a Kurganets APC nor an Armata APC, from the basis of the current main APC, the BTR-80. Your mind is too close for it. At best you would get a BTR-82, which is an improved variant of the BTR-80. The Il-112 is an independent design, but is just a clone of the An-24/26/30/32.

By this way would not be possible to reach the new model of Russian land platforms, because you would fail to recognize the change in the situation that leads to make necessary a change in the model of defense. You may not realize of it still, but likely the last contract for the procurement of the BTR-82 has been signed at this point, and since now the procurement will be done following the new model of Russian land platforms. The use of BTR-80/82/87 will decline until its exhaustion in some decades, but the work will continue being done.

In the refered to the situation of the auxiliary air transport, you seem failing to see the reality of the new model, marked perfectly in the quote in red and green from the civil demand. And it leads you to continue thinking the best option is the clone following the obsolete old model, without demand today.

The Il-112 and BTR-82 are basically clones of the previous solutions. Russia instead is moving forward with open mind, and the work of the BTR-80/82/87 and the An-24/26/30/32 will be solved in the future with solutions designed in agreement with the new models, despite to be significantly different of the BTR-80/82/87 and the An-24/26/30/32.

The BTR-82 has been just a variant used to close the gap, but the Il-112 has not time even for it, because the right solutions in agreement with the new model are basically here: Mi-38, Mi-46/AHL, Il-276, Tu-330...

Hey, it would be nice if this comedian won the election in the Ukraine and he apologises to the rebel sections of the country, pulls back the military, and reverses all the sanctions against Russia, to which Russia would immediately reverse all their reciprocal sanctions, release those held in custody on both sides and openly state that Russia is an important neighbour and we only make ourselves suffer when we separate ourselves from them... Crimea voted to leave the Ukraine several times over the last 30 years so it is perfectly acceptable that they remain part of Russia, now lets reopen ties and trade, and get rid of silly laws like the bans on Russian language... lets sort out all the shit the Americans encouraged us to shovel and lets start some real investigations into corruption and who ordered what regarding some of the atrocities perpetrated over the last half decade and also before.

If that happened then it might make sense to revive the An-70, but that is going to benefit the Ukraine rather more than Russia because it will cut into the numbers of Il-476s produced. The VDV might be happy because it is ideal for them, but for other services where cargo is landed it is slower than other similar aircraft, not a fatal flaw, but not a bonus either.

The ideal would be several hundred Il-476 in a variety of roles like refuelling, transport, AWACS, and 30-40 with large turboprop or propfan engines for the VDV specifically.

And to be honest I can't see it ever happening... even if he did say that the CIA would have him killed.

If that happened then it might make sense to revive the An-70

Antonov is dead. Russia was the only potential customer and they are replacing everything with russian hardware.

It's the same for every military companies in Ukraine. Their only customer was russia and they won't survive no matter what happen in russian/ukrainian relations. Specially if they start buying US hardwares.

They even can't no more sell spare parts to russian clients since every new hardware russia exports has 0% ukrainian parts.

German companies were also f*cked by US sanctions as they used to sell engines for russian ships which they won't anymore. Airbus and Boeing also will loose billions $ contract as russia is producing its own aircraft with its own engines.

Ukrainian arms companies only have a future making knockoffs, sorry... local production of western weapons and ex soviet weapons... but either would require significant investment... and who is going to pay for it?

For export they will need to undercut the Chinese and the Chinese stuff is getting better now too...

But who cares about the Ukraine... they are living in their EU and America supported Utopia... they don't need businesses... they can just do nothing and enjoy a comfortable life... that is how it works right?

Back on topic regarding these new Russian aircraft... I remember back in the 1990s when all the Soviet airliners were replaced with modern up to date western aircraft but the transition wasn't that smooth to begin with. First of all on paper the western aircraft carried more passengers which made them more efficient, but actually they did have any areas for heavy coats and cold weather gear, so you could pack more people in but they were crammed in there with their heavy coats and pants and boots and of course western aircraft required a lot more ground based hardware to work properly so for the tiny amount they saved on fuel... which was not a big cost, they had to spend an enormous amount on upgrading all of their airfields so that they could operate these new western aircraft.
Another problem was crew size... the old Soviet planes had crews of 5 or 6 people, while the new ones had two or three crew... sounds like the old Soviet aircraft were terrible and overstaffed and terribly inefficient, but in actual fact every aircraft has a big long list of things they have to do for takeoff and for landing and having 5 or 6 people to work through all those jobs meant turnaround times were shorter with the older less efficient aircraft... if fact often for overseas trips some Russian airlines took extra crew because it meant there could be someone fluent in other languages to aide in translating or understanding air traffic control in different places.

Ukrainian arms companies only have a future making knockoffs, sorry... local production of western weapons and ex soviet weapons... but either would require significant investment... and who is going to pay for it?

Saudi Arabia & Turkey will, to build An-132/188s.

..they don't need businesses... they can just do nothing and enjoy a comfortable life... that is how it works right?

Only for the oligarchs/politicians/SBU; most of the rest must go abroad for work or receive $ from there to survive, unless they have their own farms, stores & restaurants to feed themselves.

Il-112V problems:
https://vz.ru/society/2019/4/5/971692.print.html

So there are a few problems they need to iron out... no big deal... as long as they iron them out before production starts and not afterwards, when it is more expensive to make changes and fixes.

Saudi Arabia & Turkey will, to build An-132/188s.

Will the planes be made in the Ukraine or in Turkey and SA? If the latter then the Ukraine will only get royalties and not much actual production work... which is really what they need.