Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

As far as the il112v I would much more prefer the Russian engineers to take all the lessons learnt from that project and design a brand new bigger aircraft on the 9-12 tons payload range.

It might still end up being  a good plane despite it all.   Especially If the raised requirements rumor of 6 ton class  with overload of 9 ~ 10 ton is true.  And if Il'yushin OKB manages to pull it of without much of or any downsides in the end of course.

Id be more worried in the gap that will be left between Il-76 rehash edition and what will be Il-112.

The An-70 was chosen/planned by the Soviets  to cover(With future  weight and size creep of VDV  in mind)   the gap what the  An-40 at first  (canned due to projected lack off free production capacity)  was planned to fill.    The An-70 was also  partially meant to  replace the An-12  and in the long run the Il-76M/Il-76T

But we know how that ended and now there is and will be a major problem.........

To be honest.  I also agree that il-112 is something that shouldn't have happened.

  I personally think  Soviet conclusion in the 70's of replacing An-8, An-72, An-12 and the gap that the An-20 left unfulfilled.   With  one  15~20 ton class  and one 35 ~ 50  ton class cargo/transporter should have still been the goal.

And it could have ben done without going to Ukrainians or  giving said assignment to Il'yushin.

 
Tupolev offerings from the Soviet era for said requirements were still on offering in the 90's late 2000's  But unfortunately Russian leadership chose poorly.....



The Tu-330  payload of 35 tons. (Not as capable as the An-70 but still)






The Tu-230 with a max payload  of 18 tons






Both would have had  unification with Tupolev Tu-204/14 and Tupolev Tu-334




There was also.  

The Tu-130 with payload capability of 6,5 ton.  Would have shared avionics and cockpit layout as close as possible with the Tu-230 and 330.  






 It could probably been a better investment then the il-112 for the replacement of An-24, An-26 and An-32.


The entire lineup was offered also in LNG powered variants.

Those look fine and would fit the bill nicely. Which engines were they supposed to use?

About the An70, I do not know if it is true, but I read that the Russian side was annoyed of the size creep of the project, that should have been a replacement for the An-12 (about 20 tons payload) and instead ended up being in the same payload class as the il-76 (which was still in production, albeit in Uzbekistan).

Back to replying to Garry.

As far as the il106 the problem is that the information provided by Russia were not clear as in several articles from the past (such as this one)
https://tass-ru.turbopages.org/turbo/tass.ru/s/ekonomika/5965410

MOSCOW, 29 December. /TASS/. PJSC "Il" is developing a heavy transport aircraft Il-106 to replace the An-124 "Ruslan", a new machine should appear in 2025-2026. Nikolai Talikov, chief designer of PJSC Il, spoke about this on Saturday in an interview with the RT television channel.

"Today, the IL-106 is included in our program, and we are starting to create it. The cargo compartment of the IL-106 will be the same dimension as that of the Ruslan. The aircraft will be equipped with new engines, new avionics and everything else. Country from us requires the Il-106 to appear in 2025-2026," Talikov said.

According to him, the issue of restoring the An-124 was repeatedly raised, but after studying the issue, a decision was made to create a new military transport aircraft that would meet all modern requirements for aerobatic aviation complex, resource and transported cargo. "Thus, discussions about the need to recreate the An-124 are over," the chief designer stressed.

The new aircraft will also receive new engines. "Today, the United Engine Corporation has also begun work on our aircraft and is creating engines with a thrust of 24-26 tons," Talikov said, adding that they will make it possible to achieve a load capacity of 80 tons in normal operation and 110-120 tons with overload.[/quote]

From the article they meant a copy of the an124, not a modernisation of the original il-106 project, asThe cargo compartment of the An-124 is bigger than the one of the "original" il-106.
The il-106 was planned to have the following
Dimensions for cargo cabin 
length 34.0 meters
width 6.0 meters
height 4.6 meters

While the cargo cabin of the the An-124 has the following dimensions:
36×6.4×4.4 m

Furthermore the article spoke of 24-26 tons thrust engines, that are needed for a An-124 size aircrafts, while, as you also pointed out, the original il-106 was planned to have 4 X 18tons thrust engines.

As you can see in the picture below, the il-106 original design was of course smaller than the An-124

https://i.servimg.com/u/f75/20/17/44/07/img_2011.jpg

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:About the An70, I do not know if it is true, but I read that the Russian side was annoyed of the size creep of the project, that should have been a replacement for the An-12 (about 20 tons payload) and instead ended up being in the same payload class as the il-76 (which was still in production, albeit in Uzbekistan).

No, An-70 was from the go  meant to be a 35 to 50 payload capable beast.  Hence the engines.


It was like I said a spiritual successor to An-40.(And the gap it was supposed to fill)   And only partial meant to  replace An-12 and the older Il-76 variants.  And overall be the backbone transport for VDV.    

The direct replacement for An-12  was a requirement for 15 to20 ton range.  Like the Tu-230 and others.  Also,  Kamov and Mil were eyeing that slot also with either  compound or tilt rotor offering.

But really only Tupolev OKB did any real work in that direction before the the end of SU.  

lancelot wrote:Those look fine and would fit the bill nicely. Which engines were they supposed to use?

Tu-330   Aviadvigatel PS-90 (with options for others),  Tu-230 Progress D-436T1 or 2 series  and  Tu-130 was supposed to use Klimov TV7-117S

Robert.V wrote:Tu-330   Aviadvigatel PS-90 (with options for others),  Tu-230 Progress D-436T1 or 2 series  and  Tu-130 was supposed to use Klimov TV7-117S

The Progress D-436 could be replaced with the PD-8 from the SSJ-New once that becomes available, and the other engines are already available. So this seems like a viable lineup.

lancelot wrote:

Robert.V wrote:Tu-330   Aviadvigatel PS-90 (with options for others),  Tu-230 Progress D-436T1 or 2 series  and  Tu-130 was supposed to use Klimov TV7-117S

The Progress D-436 could be replaced with the PD-8 from the SSJ-New once that becomes available, and the other engines are already available. So this seems like a viable lineup.

It would have been yeah.

I can understand why the Tu-330 wasn't picked up. An-70 was further along R&D wise on paper and just was the superior option. And when Russia after the fall of SU picked/assisted Ukrainians with it. And-70 was on the way to becoming a flying prototype. While Tupolev Tu-330 was well paper.


But why Tu-230 or Tu-130 with their R&D on paper being finalized weren't picked I don't understand since Il-112 and il-214 were barely doodles on a paper napkin. Ilyushin OKB having some political pull maybe ? I dunno.

As far as the il112v I would much more prefer the russian engineers to take all the lessons learnt from that project and design a brand new bigger aircraft on the 9-12 tons payload range.

If the Russian military is asking for a new all Russian plane that does what the An-26 does then the Il-112 is just fine.

Plenty of programmes that had problems early on went on to be successes... starting from scratch is a last resort.

About the An70, I do not know if it is true, but I read that the Russian side was annoyed of the size creep of the project, that should have been a replacement for the An-12 (about 20 tons payload) and instead ended up being in the same payload class as the il-76 (which was still in production, albeit in Uzbekistan).

My understanding was that the An-70 was driven by the VDV who were going to buy 100 of them as basically an Il-76 that was slower and therefore dropped strings of loads or troops over a smaller area because it is flying slower.

Thinking it could replace the An-12 because it is a turboprop is ridiculous, it is a much bigger and heavier aircraft that could not land on the sort of strips the An-12 could operate from.

There have been lots of programmes but none of them were realised and right now the Il-112 is almost ready to go, and so is the Il-114.

The high wing Il-112 has the capacity to carry vehicles through a rear ramp door, while the low wing Il-114 is likely better suited to other roles.

According to him, the issue of restoring the An-124 was repeatedly raised, but after studying the issue, a decision was made to create a new military transport aircraft that would meet all modern requirements for aerobatic aviation complex, resource and transported cargo. "Thus, discussions about the need to recreate the An-124 are over," the chief designer stressed.

The new aircraft will also receive new engines. "Today, the United Engine Corporation has also begun work on our aircraft and is creating engines with a thrust of 24-26 tons," Talikov said, adding that they will make it possible to achieve a load capacity of 80 tons in normal operation and 110-120 tons with overload.

That simply does not make sense because an An-124 sized aircraft with 25 ton thrust engines is just an An-124... in fact the D18Ts generate about 23 tons force at take off... so these are more powerful engines...

Furthermore the article spoke of 24-26 tons thrust engines, that are needed for a An-124 size aircrafts, while, as you also pointed out, the original il-106 was planned to have 4 X 18tons thrust engines.

If you put 25 ton thrust engines onto an An-124 you would likely get a 150-160 ton payload capacity aircraft.

Conversely putting 18 ton thrust engines you would get an 80-90 ton capacity aircraft instead... which is sort of what they want.

I can understand why the Tu-330 wasn't picked up. An-70 was further along R&D wise on paper and just was the superior option. And when Russia after the fall of SU picked/assisted Ukrainians with it. And-70 was on the way to becoming a flying prototype. While Tupolev Tu-330 was well paper.

The Tu-330 was also based on the Tu-204/214 so with that aircraft no being produced in large numbers and widely used then it didn't really make sense to make a transport plane with 70% commonality with it.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:About the An70, I do not know if it is true, but I read that the Russian side was annoyed of the size creep of the project, that should have been a replacement for the An-12 (about 20 tons payload) and instead ended up being in the same payload class as the il-76 (which was still in production, albeit in Uzbekistan).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70
"The Antonov An-70 (Ukrainian: Антонов Ан-70) is a four-engine medium-range transport aircraft, and the first aircraft to take flight powered only by propfan engines. It was developed in the late 1980s by the Antonov Design Bureau to replace the obsolete An-12 military transport aircraft."

The Antonov 70 is the native replacement for the An-12 and for that Russia invested money in its development together with Ukraine.

An-70 has the size and MTOW of the A-400M or even a little smaller, it has nothing to do with the Il-76, as much as the ukrainians say it has a payload of 47, it is much closer to the A-400M
The big difference is that the A-400M can load up to 50t of fuel and the An-70 only 38t, which gives that theoretical increase up 10t of maximum payload.

The A-400M is designed as a semi-strategic transport for countries that cannot have larger transport aircrafts, while the An-70 is for medium range or internal regional transport of the Air Force.
Let us remember that unlike the Yankees who transport even water bottles to Iraq by plane, the Russians transport merchandise and military supplies by rail, light and medium transport is for internal transport of the Air Force or specific punctual needs.

Some countries as Spain or Kazakhstan have replaced medium transports as C-130 or An-12 for A-400M that is the size of An-70, so countries as Russia or Kazakhstan could have replaced the An-12 for An-70 is this had been available

MOSCOW, 29 December. /TASS/. PJSC "Il" is developing a heavy transport aircraft Il-106 to replace the An-124 "Ruslan", a new machine should appear in 2025-2026. Nikolai Talikov, chief designer of PJSC Il, spoke about this on Saturday in an interview with the RT television channel.

"designer of PJSC"

OK, a designer trying to justify his salary

The only thing that matters is what the MoD says and where puts the scarce money they have

By 2025 there will be nothing of this kind and less in current war conditions

The An-124 will be in operation for at least two more decades, taking into account that Russia still has aircraft in reserve that can perfectly extend the resource until 2040 and even until 2050.
Shoigu clearly stated that he only needs 16 An-124s, although he asked to increase the number of IL-76s to 250.
The heavy transport aircraft is not one of the things that Russia needs in the short or medium term, there are more important needs where to put the money

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

As far as the il112v I would much more prefer the russian engineers to take all the lessons learnt from that project and design a brand new bigger aircraft on the 9-12 tons payload range.

New generation turboprops in the 4000-5000hp power range (same as the Rolls-Royce AE-2100 of the C27J) are being developed anyway

GarryB wrote:

If the Russian military is asking for a new all Russian plane that does what the An-26 does then the Il-112 is just fine.

Plenty of programmes that had problems early on went on to be successes... starting from scratch is a last resort.

That plane for replace An-26 already existed, it is the An-72/74

The only reason why the Il-112 was started with too much haste and mistakes, like the Il-276, is because of the coup d'état in Ukraine, otherwise the joint Russian-Ukrainian company Antonov would have continued to operate and manufacture An-148/178 or An-74 and others


The An-72 was thought in the USSR to replace the An-26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72
"The Antonov An-72 is a Soviet/Ukrainian transport aircraft, developed by Antonov. It was designed as an STOL transport and intended as a replacement for the Antonov An-26"

If you look at the production years, the An-26 was produced from 1969 to 1985
Just in 1985 the chain production of the An-72 began, which lasted until 1991, the year the USSR fell and the reason why it did not continue to replace the An-26
In 1992, Ukraine changed the index to An-74 which was actually the An-72A (Artic version), so this aircraft has more cargo and fuel capacity than the original An-72

Shoigu called for the modification of the 6 Navy An-72s based at Ostalfyevo (usually go to support North Fleet and other Artic bases)), to carry more cargo and fuel, probably matching the An-74 in performance.

The payload of the An-72 started at 7.5 (6t normal load), with MTOW of 30t
The most modern versions of the An-74 reach a max-payload of 10t with a normal load of 7.5t, higher fuel capacity and a MTOW of 35-36t.

I really don't understand either why a plane with helix-engines in the Air Force, specially if you dont have one good engine and need desing other new for the first time in decades

The An-72 has a great design that allows it to operate on short runways, operate in extreme low temperatures,  reduce accidents and achieve great performance for a ligth cargo military transport airplane

At the end of the war in Ukranie I would perfect one new version of the An-74 and they would produce it in Kharkov, leaving other factories free to manufacture larger and more necessary aircraft as substitutes for special versions EW, command post, ASW... (Il.20, Il- 22, Il-86, Il-38, Tu-142, etc...)

The most significant difference between the An-26 and An-72 with the Il-112 is that it has a wider cargo bay, but I don't know if this is really necessary for reasons of using master pallets or standard size containers. I'm not sure if the Russians use a standardized system for loading military aircraft, or what are their measurements in case they use something like that

IL-112 xargo compartment dimensions, 8.4 x 2.45 x 2.42 m
An-72/74 pressurized cargo bay had dimensions of 10.5 x 2.15 (width) x 2.2 (high)
Am-26 cargo hold dimensions (LxWxH): 11.5 m x 2.31 m x 1.7 m.

However, the An-72/74 width of 2.15 is due to the narrower shape at the base and could perhaps be increased a bit.




The Il-112 can't compete in the market with the C-295 and others, in fact it looks like absolute shit to me, too fat body,  low wingspan and bad aerodymamics, even compared to the An-72/74
The reason Antonov has not been able to compete since the "Orange Revolution" of 2004 has been caused by the westerners taking care to destroy Ukraine and its industry by paying Ukrainian politicians and oligarchs who are totally and utterly corrupt.

Given the new situation that opens with the war in Ukraine and the integration of many of its regions in Russia, I would certainly recover the Antonov brand and restore the production of An-74, whose latest versions are quite good and were well received. in countries like Iran and other arab countries and will be well receibed in in South America or Africa
It is the light cargo aircraft that best suits the needs of a large and cold country like Russia.

Wiki is wrong.

Antonov An-26  replacement was the An-32.    

The An-72 was the replacement for the An-8.  Both carried comparably  same payload in cargo transport role  8 + ton vs 11 ton and around same  payload in airborne assault role  7,5 ton.

An-74 pretty much upped the cargo payload capability even more closer inline with the An-8.

Robert.V wrote:Wiki is wrong.

Antonov An-26  replacement was the An-32.

 

THis is not true, An-32 is the export version of An26, and the production starts in 1983 so was at least 3 years in parallel to that of the An-26
The An-32 was adapted to operate at higher temperatures, which is why it was mainly sold to India, Afghanistan and African countries.  

The An-72 was the replacement for the An-8.  Both carried comparably  same payload in cargo transport role  8 + ton vs 11 ton and around same  payload in airborne assault role  7,5 ton.

Nothing to do with it, the An-8 is a slightly smaller copy of the An-10 and An-12, it was developed and produced (only 150 machines in total for 3 ot 4 years) in parallel with these two planes An-10 and An-12, but it was decommissioned in 1970 for being redundant, and some machines was transferred to other ministries. of the USSR.
The An-8 had a MTOW of 41t, much higher than the original An-72's MTOW of 30t.
ALso the dimensions of the aircraft and cargo hold are also significantly larger than the An-72 but performance is much lower in payload and space in the cargo bay than the An-12 even though it is very close in size. outside, probably why he retired from the Air Force prematurely.

Start of serial production, year 1958 (until 1961)
Wingspan, m 37.0
Aircraft length, m 30,744
Height, m ​​10.045
Wing area, m² 117.2
Cargo cabin dimensions, m
length 11.0
width (in the area of ​​​​chassis niches) 3.6 (2.5)
height (in the area of ​​the center section) 2.9 (2.42)
Empty weight, t 24.3
Maximum takeoff weight, t 41.0
Maximum payload, tons 11.0 (or 40 paratroopers)


From 1970 to 1985, when An-72 began to be produced, 15 years passed. In fact, the decline of the An-8 has much more to do with the entry into service of the An-26, precisely in 1969

The An-72 was designed as something totally different with the engines on the wings as a STOL aircraft, with more safety by having the engines far from the surface of the runway and adapted to operate in the most remote and coldest places.

Unfortunately at the time of the collapse of the USSR, Russia only had a few dozen and the supply from the Ukraine was cut off, so aircraft replacement could not continue for next decades.

"The Antonov An-70 (Ukrainian: Антонов Ан-70) is a four-engine medium-range transport aircraft, and the first aircraft to take flight powered only by propfan engines. It was developed in the late 1980s by the Antonov Design Bureau to replace the obsolete An-12 military transport aircraft."

The Antonov 70 is the native replacement for the An-12 and for that Russia invested money in its development together with Ukraine.

It is way too big to replace the An-12... it is the right size to replace the early model Il-76s with 40 ton payload capacities, but way to big to replace An-12s.

An-70 has the size and MTOW of the A-400M or even a little smaller, it has nothing to do with the Il-76,

The main customer of the An-70 was the VDV wanting an Il-76 that can fly slower...

Some countries as Spain or Kazakhstan have replaced medium transports as C-130 or An-12 for A-400M that is the size of An-70, so countries as Russia or Kazakhstan could have replaced the An-12 for An-70 is this had been available

That would not be very efficient as they still need 20 ton capacity transports that makes them lighter and cheaper than the Il-76 weight aircraft when the payload isn't too big.

Different sizes and weights are all about flexibility.

The only reason why the Il-112 was started with too much haste and mistakes, like the Il-276, is because of the coup d'état in Ukraine, otherwise the joint Russian-Ukrainian company Antonov would have continued to operate and manufacture An-148/178 or An-74 and others

That might be true but the Il-112 is being sorted out and will be a good replacement for the An-26, and their work on engines for heavier helicopters... like a 10-15 ton capacity helicopter they were thinking about plus new engines for the Mi-26 should result in some interesting new engines they could use for light and not so light aircraft too.

The payload of the An-72 started at 7.5 (6t normal load), with MTOW of 30t
The most modern versions of the An-74 reach a max-payload of 10t with a normal load of 7.5t, higher fuel capacity and a MTOW of 35-36t.

Which suggests growth potential for their other types in development...

At the end of the war in Ukranie I would perfect one new version of the An-74 and they would produce it in Kharkov, leaving other factories free to manufacture larger and more necessary aircraft as substitutes for special versions EW, command post, ASW... (Il.20, Il- 22, Il-86, Il-38, Tu-142, etc...)

Building new factories in contested territory is never a good idea....

The most significant difference between the An-26 and An-72 with the Il-112 is that it has a wider cargo bay, but I don't know if this is really necessary for reasons of using master pallets or standard size containers. I'm not sure if the Russians use a standardized system for loading military aircraft, or what are their measurements in case they use something like that

IL-112 xargo compartment dimensions, 8.4 x 2.45 x 2.42 m

If the Russian military asked for a wider fuselage I would guess it is to allow a new pallet design or a pallet design that those other aircraft would not be able to carry.... or perhaps a vehicle they want to carry requires the extra width...

The Il-112 can't compete in the market with the C-295 and others, in fact it looks like absolute shit to me, too fat body, low wingspan and bad aerodymamics, even compared to the An-72/74

It s a military plane, it does not matter about the international markets... the extra internal volume might be important or relevant to what they want to use it for... which of course will reduce its aerodynamic performance, but who cares about that?

The reason Antonov has not been able to compete since the "Orange Revolution" of 2004 has been caused by the westerners taking care to destroy Ukraine and its industry by paying Ukrainian politicians and oligarchs who are totally and utterly corrupt.

The west being the west... they have done it to the third world for centuries and now are doing it in every second world country that lets them...

Given the new situation that opens with the war in Ukraine and the integration of many of its regions in Russia, I would certainly recover the Antonov brand and restore the production of An-74, whose latest versions are quite good and were well received.

Antonov is a Ukrainian brand... whether you like that or not.... I understand it was Soviet, but now it is Ukrainian and so I can't see any Russian wanting to revive the brand... the money spent reviving it would be better spent expanding the UAC and its production factories and testing capacity and design staff.

Maybe they could open a few factories in the newest parts of Russia, but why call them Antonov when no Antonov will be part of it.

Antonov An-26 replacement was the An-32.

The An-32 was a custom designed An-26 with double the engine power for operating in hot and high locations.

For countries that don't have hot or high conditions or never flew to countries with hot or high conditions the An-32 of no value except a higher fuel burn.

The An-72 was an experiment in the Coanda effect... the engines on top of the wing had aelerons and flaps that the engine thrust attached too so when the aelerons and flaps were lowered for landing the airflow from the jet engines travelled down the flaps and were angled slightly downwards as a sort of thrust vectoring to allow it to safely fly at lower speeds than usual for an aircraft of that size and weight.

The problem of course that most airport equipment for servicing civilian jet engines expect them to be in pods under the wings and not sitting on top of the wings so while the roof hatches and ability to open the engine cowls means you can inspect the engines by standing on the roof and wing, to take parts out the equipment that is normally used in underwing engines doesn't work. so you need different equipment.

Unfortunately at the time of the collapse of the USSR, Russia only had a few dozen and the supply from the Ukraine was cut off, so aircraft replacement could not continue for next decades.

To be fair if they wanted some they could have just bought some... but they were no foreign planes... so they didn't.

GarryB wrote:Antonov is a Ukrainian brand... whether you like that or not.... I understand it was Soviet, but now it is Ukrainian and so I can't see any Russian wanting to revive the brand... the money spent reviving it would be better spent expanding the UAC and its production factories and testing capacity and design staff.

Maybe they could open a few factories in the newest parts of Russia, but why call them Antonov when no Antonov will be part of it.

It will not be Ukrainian for long.  As far as the factories they will not be called Antonov anyway. In the Soviet (and now, at least since the proper reorganization under UAC) the design bureau do not own the production and assembly plants. They work closely together (and often a design bureau has its favourite plants), but they are separate entities within the UAC umbrella.

Kharkov oblast (and the neighboring Sumi, Poltava and Dnepropetrovsk) will soon be part of Russia anyway, so there will be no issues in giving some work to Kharkov aviation factory.


As far as Antonov design bureau... It is one of Gorbachev and Eltsin huge mistakes... anyway it is Antonov design bureau, not "Shevchenko" design bureau.. it deserves to come back home.

The only things remaining of the Ukrainian Antonov will be the cargo airlines (as several are currently in the west). They can keep them and call the new airline Varsavia Cargo (that will stay mostly grounded as they will not have authorisation to keep the aircraft legally airworthy)

Probably to be one hundred per cent sure the full transfer of Antonov properties and IP should be put in the war reparation list after Kiev will have finally surrender.

As I posted in September..

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

Russia does not need to "rebuild" Antonov and and Antonov is not dangerous competition.
Russia just need the name and the IP. The infrastructure already exist in Russia.
Antonov will be a part of UAC as it is Ilyushin, Yakovlev or Tupulev. They can put a new design bureau in Moscow for it and if needed or convenient cooperate with Ilyushin design bureau (and/or with new entities outside the UAC like the Ural Civil Aviation Plant, that build the Let-L410 and designed the Ladoga and Baikal aircraft)
as well.


In soviet union the plants were not owned by the design bureau, anyway.




And when they release the new cargo planes models they can have some of them branded Ilyushin, some Antonov and maybe also some Tupulev (according to which design bureau made the lion's share of work).


The new (Moscow based) Antonov design bureau could also possibly work on a cargo plane of 10 to 12 tons of payload (as the Alenia C27J, about double the payload of the il-112), to be build in Moscow region or in Samara.


Or they could also support the Ural Civil Aviation Plant to design and build a fully russian replacement of the let L-410.


Even the Ladoga could be renamed as An-142 (just an example)
(E.g Airbus renamed the bombardier C-series into airbus A-220).


As far as Antonov plants and infrastructure in Kiev and Kharkov, if (and only if) those regions will be integrated into Russia proper as well, they will also be included in the UAC umbrella (not as Antonov plants, but as Kiev Aircraft plant and Kharkov Aircraft plant).


Later they can take parts in manufacturing of aircraft parts to be delivered to other russian plants. (As an example in the recent past Kharkov Aircraft plant cooperated closely with Aviakor in Samara). Finally if there will be the necessity for Russia those plants could also be used for final assembly of aircrafts (of course after properly modernising them).


It is not like there will not be work for Russian aircraft plants now that they are not going to buy western planes anymore. There will be the opposite problem. Not being able to produce enough planes.

Back to the 5 tons payload aircraft. If the increased width of the cargo area is not absolutely needed, this segment is already covered by the cargo version of the TVRS-44 Ladoga. I feel the il-112v just became redundant (at least with current specs.

AMCXXL wrote:

THis is not true, An-32 is the export version of An26, and the production starts in 1983 so was at least 3 years in parallel to that of the An-26
The An-32 was adapted to operate at higher temperatures, which is why it was mainly sold to India, Afghanistan and African countries.  

 
Just because it was  made with  export requirements in mind didn't make it purely for export.   As the bulk still ended up being produced for Soviet Union.      As far as An-32 being produced in parallel with An-26 for 3 years is a nothing burger as well.   One production line was mature and the other wasn't. Simple as that.

AMCXXL wrote:

Nothing to do with it, the An-8 is a slightly smaller copy of the An-10 and An-12,

Except for the fact that An-8 was in development first and on the bases of An-8 they made  both An-10 and An-12  

AMCXXL wrote:
it was developed and produced (only 150 machines in total for 3 ot 4 years) in parallel with these two planes An-10 and An-12, but it was decommissioned in 1970 for being redundant, and some machines was transferred to other ministries. of the USSR.

An-12 production needs and space is why An-8 wasn't produced in more numbers.   And no An-8 was not decommissioned in the 70's that happened after the collapse of Soviet Union.  It did however see some numbers transfer to civil use.  

I do however kind of agree with you that An-26 kind off took it's role.  

But it's also obvious that An-26 didn't cut it.   Hence the An-72 (especially An-74's ) is closer inline with An-8 in terms of payload capability, range and cargo  hold dimensions  rather then to An-26.    

While the An-32 is in fact inline with An-26 in those capabilities/requirements.

It will not be Ukrainian for long. As far as the factories they will not be called Antonov anyway. In the Soviet (and now, at least since the proper reorganization under UAC) the design bureau do not own the production and assembly plants. They work closely together (and often a design bureau has its favourite plants), but they are separate entities within the UAC umbrella.

The design bureau that was Antonov have been acting like a bunch of for decades and have done everything they could to squeeze money out of Russia for this or that project, never giving them any intellectual property rights and screwing them over in regards to support and upgrades for aircraft and engines...

It is a tiny shell of what it was and is not worth reviving in any shape or form.

UAC would be better to just expand Tupolev and Ilyusion and Myasishchev to add transports and civilian planes and the problem is solved.

Trying to set up a department in UAC made up of Ukrainians from Antonov is just setting up a 5th column inside an important organisation and it creates huge problems.

First of all you wont get anyone with any experience of actually making anything good because they already left for jobs at Boeing and UAC... the administration were shit and have been trying to peddle snake oil these last 20 odd years... mostly to Russia their main customer which they screwed over time and time again.

The Engineers will be long gone and again none with real experience working on anything useful is left... their factories will be gone and their equipment stolen or sold...

They would be better off focussing on the three Soviet aircraft makers with experience in large aircraft left... even Yak and MiG and Sukhoi could have a go in some weight ranges for aircraft designs.

For every Antonov design that got into service there were competing types from at least two other design teams most of the time, and Antonovs political power often meant their designs made it when other types potentially had more promise or perhaps more risk.

Russia has plenty of design and production depth to solve their own problems and in solving their own problems they are creating products the rest of the world is waiting for solutions for too... don't think the An-26s and An-2s and other types around the world are all brand new fresh from the manufacturer... they need replacements too and western replacements are expensive and often politically not an option.

Former occupied colonial countries spent blood and sweat and resources to get rid of their occupier... the last thing they want to do is create new strings the west can pull leading to France or the US... especially paying top dollar for those strings themselves.

China has alternatives, and Brazil might too, but Russian alternatives give them choice... and potential for local production contracts perhaps.

I am sure South Africa might be interested in building a factory to make Il-476s if it can also make Il-276s too... getting a factory that can make an Il-76 and an An-12 with standardised size and engines and avionics would be useful throughout Africa and the world... and other customers in Africa might want to buy from them too.

As far as Antonov design bureau... It is one of Gorbachev and Eltsin huge mistakes... anyway it is Antonov design bureau, not "Shevchenko" design bureau.. it deserves to come back home.

It deserves to be buried and allowed some rest... forget the cockeyed new shit, and just remember the greats.... the An-22, the An-124, and of course the An-2 and An-12, and quite a few other types.

Russia has set the goal of replacing all Soviet era equipment with new generation stuff... first maximal upgrades that fixed most problems, but in the background develop new generation replacements that solves all the fundamental problems from experience in use of the existing types.

The upgrades can be based on new stuff being developed for the new generation stuff, but it is all about applying new technologies to the next gen stuff, and putting it on existing types to get it into service and widespread use to get experience and mass production going so production can be mastered quicker and problems and faults found and eliminated in the field as quickly as possible so when the new gen stuff enters serial production it can be more mature and reliable and also delay the introduction of the next gen stuff by increasing the quality of what is in service right now, and giving the military a taste of what is to come with the new stuff so it is not a huge jump in learning or use.

There is already enough talent and competition in the UAC and the existing designers and engineers can be added to as needed depending on what they are working on.

It is not like they have one job and they allocate one design bureau to do that job... they normally announce a programme and normally the different design bureaus allocate designers and engineers and resources to that job... sometimes they go all out, and other times they think outside the box... the competition for a new CAS aircraft looked like a mix of conservative (the MiG entry appears to be a MiG-21 variant, while the Yak model appears similar to the Yak-25 in layout... only the Il and Su models looked different and were not supersonic types... which was revolutionary thinking at the time, but also practical and sensible.) and edge of envelope.

Normal competition should continue but now there wont be an entry from Antonov... but that has been more their fault than Russias fault... they overestimated their own importance and forgot the basic idea of business... alienate your main customer and times will be tough till you can find new customers... Antonov expected that when they rejected Russia, their main paying customer, that the market of the west and former eastern block that had just jumped ship to the west would easily make up for lost Russian sales... but Eastern Europe didn't want Soviet crap... the west wanted them to buy their shit, and of course they wanted Kiev to buy western stuff too.

The last few years the western MIC has been complaining about all the soviet crap their new allies are using when they could be paying 10 to 100 times more and use western stuff instead... that often might not even be as good.

Well Antonov was unrepentent so why should Russia revive them.... they are dead... let it go.

Plus with them dead Russia is free to do with its various Antonovs it still has as it pleases including upgrades and modifications if that allows them to serve out their remaining time better.

Any attempt to incorporate Antonov into UAC will just be an economic and political nightmare any group of Orcs around the world could use to claim ownership of Russian military aircraft landing anywhere outside Russia, which is going to kill export orders too.

Better to cut off the limb with gangrene... cauterise the wound and start using your many other legs instead who could of course take up the slack eventually with a fraction of the investment and time it would take to fix Antonov...

Build factories to make planes in the new regions... but don't call them Antonov.

Probably to be one hundred per cent sure the full transfer of Antonov properties and IP should be put in the war reparation list after Kiev will have finally surrender.

All their tools and equipment will be burned or sold and all the people will be gone.

All these companies are just going to be empty buildings if they are lucky... but more likely torched.

This territory is going to be Russian territory so of course build factories and reopen mines and clear farmland of UXO, but reviving Motor Sich or Antonov or anything else is a waste of money and time.

Antonov will be a part of UAC as it is Ilyushin, Yakovlev or Tupulev.

But why?

We don't even know if Antonov is even an operating entity any more, and the OAK already has plenty of design and manufacturing capacity... just from Wiki they have:
Aviastar-SP
Beriev
Ilyushin
Irkut Corporation
Branch: Regional Aircraft-Branch of the Irkut Corporation (before:Sukhoi Civil Aircraft)
Branch: Irkutsk Aviation Plant
Branch: Yakovlev Design Bureau
Myasishchev
Mikoyan
Branch: Sokol Plant
Sukhoi
Design Bureau
Civil Aircraft (now acquired by Irkut Corporation)
Branch: Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association
Branch: Novosibirsk Aircraft Production Association
Tupolev
Branch: Kazan Aircraft Production Association
Voronezh Aircraft Production Association.

Which sounds like plenty to me... rather than adding a new branch they could just expand a few existing parts of their structure that were already taking on the work to replace Antonovs already.

Back to the 5 tons payload aircraft. If the increased width of the cargo area is not absolutely needed, this segment is already covered by the cargo version of the TVRS-44 Ladoga. I feel the il-112v just became redundant (at least with current specs.

Have you even looked at the types you are talking about? A cargo version of a Let-410 is going to need a serious redesign if you want to have a rear ramp for vehicles and pallets...

The Il-112 can easily be fitted with seats to carry people, but the Let is not readily able to have a rear ramp door for vehicles and pallets for cargo.

Just because it was made with export requirements in mind didn't make it purely for export. As the bulk still ended up being produced for Soviet Union. As far as An-32 being produced in parallel with An-26 for 3 years is a nothing burger as well. One production line was mature and the other wasn't. Simple as that.

The An-32 was a specialised hot and high version of the An-24/25/26, and was custom designed for India or use in Afghanistan where the existing Antonovs didn't work so well in hot and high conditions that seriously reduced their engine performance.

But it's also obvious that An-26 didn't cut it. Hence the An-72 (especially An-74's ) is closer inline with An-8 in terms of payload capability, range and cargo hold dimensions rather then to An-26.

Being a jet it is not so easily maintained in the middle of nowhere, though it is faster.

After proving itself it was a good jet, but I rather suspect an Il-276 or the Il-214... both twin jets and both put forward as replacements for the An-12 would make the An-74 or An-74 a bit redundant and at the same time replace the An-12.

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:My plan and considerations
...

I'm sorry, but these plans are unrealistic. 65+ aircraft annually only for the purposes of military transport aviation - this will require the construction of at least three new factories and the recruitment of about 200,000 qualified personnel.
And spending 150-200 billion rubles a year only for these purposes, if every ruble is spent extremely rationally.

Who said anything about Ukrainian engineers?

It will not be the Ukrainian Antonov. It will be the rebirth of a brand new Antonov design bureau.


They can start in Moscow with the former Boeing employees plus maybe some professionals from Volga Dnepr or other firms and slowly rebuild the design Bureau and train new people.
Boeing until march 2022 was employing about 1000 engineers in their Moscow design center (that was the main responsible of the modification for the 747-800F)

https://www.boeing.com/features/innovation-quarterly/2021/03/boeing-design-center.page

Well if it is going to be a new design group why raise a dead name that has nothing to do with the group you are getting together... you might as well call it Boeing...

Most of those engineers will likely try to get US citizenship and try to move to the west I rather suspect, I mean they have been working for the enemy...


Dated information from the UAC website regarding the MTS design:

The multi-purpose transport aircraft (MTS) is a joint international project of UAC-TS and the Indian aircraft manufacturing Corporation Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). It is being developed within the framework of an intergovernmental agreement between Russia and India.

Research on the global market has shown that currently there is a high demand for transport aircraft capable of carrying up to 20 tons at a distance of up to 3000 km. According to regulatory documents, the MTS is classified as an operational-strategic medium military transport aircraft, it provides transportation of a wide range of various loads weighing 12,000 kg over a distance of 4,700 km and a load of 20,000 kg over a distance of 2,000 km in any geographical and climatic conditions, day and night, in simple and difficult weather conditions.

As a military transport aircraft, the MTS is designed for:

   transportation of personnel (up to 140 military personnel);
   parachute landing of paratroopers (up to 90 people);
   transportation of cargo, equipment, universal sea and air containers and pallets;
   parachute landing of cargo and equipment on platforms;
   parachute-free cargo drop from low altitudes.

The accepted design parameters, the dimensions of the cargo cabin and the power plant of the MTS determine its ability to transport up to 80% of the currently used types of weapons and military equipment. The cross-sectional dimensions of the cargo sealed cabin of the MTS are identical to those of the IL-76MD heavy military transport aircraft, which makes it possible to use the entire existing infrastructure of loading and unloading, transportation and amphibious vehicles. Autonomous (in isolation from the main home airfield) solution of transport tasks and preparation for departure by technical and flight crews consisting of 2 to 6 people is provided.

The high thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft ensures its operation from high-altitude airfields (up to 3,300 m above sea level), both with concrete and with a ground surface (with a ground density of up to 8 kg / cm2 - it is possible to use more than 90% of the airfield network of the Russian Federation). MTS also meets the world level of fuel efficiency.

Given the high export potential of the aircraft, the design takes into account the requirements of not only the Russian and Indian Air Forces, but also potential customers. It is expected that in 2015-2020 in the third world countries, the new transport aircraft may become an alternative not only for the AN-12 and C-130 Hercules, but also for the much smaller AN-26. A significant advantage of MTS over its competitors is its relatively low cost.

It is assumed that the parties will participate in the MTS program at all its stages. Currently, the preliminary design of the aircraft has been fully completed, and a joint detailed business plan for the project has been developed and initialed. It is assumed that the project will be financed by the Russian and Indian sides in equal shares. The first flight of the MTS is scheduled for 2016.

   Design features
   Scheme
   Specifications

The designed aircraft is designed according to a normal aerodynamic scheme with a high-placed wing of moderate sweep, a T-shaped tail unit and two turbojet engines placed on pylons under the wing.

The aircraft is supposed to be equipped with 2 PD-14M dual-circuit turbojet engines with a maximum take-off thrust of 15,600 kgf. The TA18-200 auxiliary powerplant will be located in the left fairing of the chassis. The concept of the avionics complex provides for the possibility of modernization and expansion of functions due to an open architecture. A single information and control "field" of the cockpit will combine six multifunctional LCD displays and two LCD indicators on the windshield.

The in-flight refueling system is installed at the individual request of the customer.

The dimensions of the sealed cargo cabin were selected in accordance with the requirements for the characteristics of the load capacity and cargo capacity of the Ministry of Defense of Russia and India, as well as the required range of payloads, current and prospective military equipment, as well as the need for transportation and landing. The length of the cargo ramp is chosen based on the condition that it is tilted to the parking ground at an angle of 12° for the convenience of rolling wheeled vehicles, as well as the possibility of placing loads weighing up to 2,500 kg on it.

For parachute landing of parachutists, a cable system for forced opening of parachutes, separators and flow interrupters are installed in the cargo cabin. In the cargo cabin of the aircraft can also be installed sanitary equipment that allows you to transport up to 80 victims.

The flight crew of the aircraft consists of 3 people: the crew commander, the assistant crew commander and the navigator. An additional seat for the flight technician is provided on the plane.

It is planned to further develop the aircraft by creating modifications based on it.:

   radar patrol and guidance aircraft;
   patrol and reconnaissance aircraft;
   repeater aircraft;
   search and rescue aircraft;
   aviation jamming system;
   a tanker plane.

So if you make the Il-276 replace the An-12 but also the An-26 and An-32 in some roles we could also add that being a jet it would also be a suitable replacement for the An-72/74, then it becomes a very useful aircraft that can be made in factories already built to make Il-476 aircraft...

Well the problem was also that in the mid2000 Ilyushin was in a dire situation (and paying shit), and at that time the same government was buying Boeing aircrafts... So I do not see them as traitors. Furthermore US is not the best place for  Russian engineer to go. White people are seen already as bad, imagine if russian...it would be like being a Jew in Germany in 1938

I said as much. UAC should have just grabbed all those laid off Boeing engineers in Russia and put them to work in the military transport program and also on the design changes to make the MC-21-200, MC-21-400, SSJ variants, etc. The cost is peanuts compared to the upside.

Nice background

Is there a Boeing R&D center in Russia ? If they lost their jobs they will very likely try to get new ones in russian aviation industry even if I think Boeing didn't use russian engineers for the development of planes inside Russia but more likely just maintenance. So they are of little help.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/ditching-russia-boeings-engineer-search-intensifies-in-india-brazil/

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Boeing has in effect permanently shuttered its Moscow Design Center, formerly the company’s preeminent overseas engineering facility that at one time housed about 1,500 engineers.
...
Boeing set up its design center in Moscow 24 years ago. It was a key asset, performing basic engineering structures work, mostly on derivative airplane models such as the 747-8.
...
Boeing let all its contract employees in Moscow go. Many direct employees left the company and stayed in Russia. Boeing helped others get out of the country.
...
In the course of 2022, Russia all but disappeared from Boeing’s map, with work for 640 employees moving from Moscow to other sites.

The internal presentation indicates 21% of that work will go to India; 18% to Washington state; 16% to Brazil; and 10% to Poland, with the destination of the remainder not yet determined.

Isos, about the Boeing engineers in Moscow, actually they were responsible for the latest Boeing 747-800f (freighter) modification, I believe it was discussed also here.

But is it a Boeing office in Russia or some sort of consulting subcontract ?

That's hard to beleive they would go for russian expertise on their products even if their company is being eaten alive by Airbus and soon by the chinese but still... russian bureau of Boeing...

Il-96 is waiting for that team. The sooner the better to make the il-96 what it should have been for the last 30 years. A fucking successful bird both as a cargo and as a civilian plane.

Boeings loss, but these idiots think this harms Russia? More talent released locally that can be harnesseed by UAC.