I wouldn't be surprized if they give/sell some An-22s to China for reverse engeneering!
If they were interested they likely would have bought the plans from the Ukraine.
I suspect the sticking point would be the engines, which I presume are made in Russia.
They can't immediately, but they have all the technology and they should be able soon also to produce new D-18T engines.
They really don't have a huge number of An-124s and if they get the PD-35 engine going I don't think it makes sense to even bother making more An-124s.
I would say it would be more in their interests to get the Il-106 flying and operational and then the Slon type would be next with four of said new engines.
Making parts for the D-18TM means the An-124s they have can keep flying for quite some time now, but they really don't need a lot more of them.
The factories that would be making An-124s should be building prototype Il-106s for testing and development... they can make a few PD-35s for prototypes while development continues.
There were plans to restart production back in 2012, but $0.5B were needed then; if they can't afford it now, & w/o new engines, than they can't do it by default.
Making new parts for the engines means they take aircraft out of storage and get them up and running again so making new aircraft should be left until they run out of aircraft in storage.
If the PD-35s are ready in 5-6 years time then they could possibly go to making Il-106 aircraft and to making a Slon prototype for development and testing instead.
Russia can restart production of new An-124 in 3-4 years, in addition to repairing and bringing back in service mothballed An-124.
They could, but should they?
What sort of demand will there be and how many do they have in storage?
The new PD-35 means the An-124 does not make sense... an 80-90 ton payload transport with two PD-35s and a 170-180 ton payload transport with four PD-35s makes sense. A twin engined An-124 would probably have a payload capacity of 60-70 tons if the engines are only 24 ton thrust class engines.
Modifying An-124s to PD-35s would be problematic... might as well go with the new design instead (Il-106).
New An-22s with minimum redesign & off the shelf engines could be produced faster & for a lot le$$ than An-124s, Slons & Il-106.
An-22 are old design... if they were making more why would they retire the current aircraft?
They must have used up their airframe and engine lives.
Time for a new Russian type to replace them.
That would be Il-106 which is just waiting for its PD-35 engines.
Of course the Il-106 could use four 18 ton thrust late model PS90 engines in a first version to get it into service, and then when the PD-35 engines are ready it could revert to a twin jet plane.
Russia could also import/lease some Y-20s/Y-20-100Fs &/ buy back some PLAAF Il-76s, if need be. Besides, there'll be a dozen surplus A-400Ms after reduction in their orders, so some nations may sell their Il-76s to get them, or Russia may get them via 3rd countries before importing parts on the black market or producing her own parts, & fitting the engines developed for the cancelled An-70.
Russian airlines are suffering now because they sold out local designers and aircraft makers... don't think they will make the same mistake twice.
Plus the A-400M is a dog... and an expensive dog at that.
They just need someone to go through the production of the Il-476 and work out what the problems are and solve them... if they can't make Il-476s then how can they make anything?
The MTA is a smaller lighter Il-476 with two engines instead of four so setting up several factories to make Il-276s would make things much better... depending on demand they can switch between making either aircraft type depending on the demand at the time.
Smaller lighter aircraft are generally needed and produced in greater numbers and having factories that can make either means you could set up several new factories to make Il-276s but they could make a few prototypes and then go to serial production of Il-476s till the smaller aircraft is ready for serial production.
It could help boost production numbers of the larger type while the smaller types design is perfected and serialised and then it can shift to making the smaller aircraft.
Keep in mind that the Il-476 is used as the basis for the transport and the inflight refuelling aircraft as well as the new AWACS A-100 and perhaps a new upgraded airborne laser platform and likely several other types including perhaps a new version to test new jet engines etc etc.
Equally the Il-276 will be replacing the An-12 which was also used in a very broad range of roles including ejection seat testing and various EW and jamming roles, and potentially AWACS and inflight refuelling and MPA roles... perhaps even patrol aircraft and altitude bomber.
And then you have export potential for both types once they are in production at a sufficient rate... the An-12 and Il-76 were popular export items and a new BRICS family will need new modern types too.
It would almost make more sense to reconsider the An-70.
The main problem of the An-70 was the politic games of Country 404, which destroyed a very promising project.
I would say a simpler solution would be an Il-476 with An-70 engines and props to allow lower flight speeds.
I am not saying that Russia should resuscitate this but there were also several proposed alternative versions, like a smaller version with only 2 D-27 engines which could have been a good An-12 replacement and a stretched variant with either 4 propfan or 4 turbofan engines.
For which the Il-276 with two propfan engines would make more sense... perhaps reviewing the propfan engines they were developing for the Il-106 might be in order and perhaps those engines might be of use on a range of aircraft types including but not limited to amphibians.
Actually, if the Tu-330 is not chosen, I would really like to see something like a shorter An-70 powered by two turboprop or propfan as An-12 replacement.
With the Antonov lobby gone and the Tu-214 in serial production I would say the Tu-330 or some development of it should be a priority.
And I hope they keep the Antonov name.
Antonov is not part of the UAC, and their behaviour during the post cold war period... I wouldn't lift a finger to save their name.
Keep the An-124 designation and the An-2s, but as they disappear so does the name IMHO...
as a cheaper stopgap; they can free up many older Il-76s & An-12/72s for upgrades/conversions to tankers & AWACS.
Part of the reason they are not cranking out 50 Il-476s a year is because some of them are going to be Il-478 and A-100 types.
while it can lift 10T less, it's still better than 0 An-22/70s, & to free up/augment/replace some overworked Il-76s & An-12s, thus prolonging their life even more.
Old AN-12 and Il-76s don't need their lives prolonged. Replace them with new and scrap the old.
Fill them with explosives and remote control fly them into targets in Ukraine that need big booms.