Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Il-76MD/476s can be stretched to the Il-76F size to add to their value

The issue is that the cargo hold of the il-76 is relatively narrow (3.2 m wide) for its weight payload capabilities, limiting the size of possible payloads to be carried.

Stretching it does not change its width.
It could still be useful for something or for standard pallets since it would mean having anyway more internal space, but that still means that everything wider than 3.2 m will need to be carried by a An-124.

Even the project for An-70 and the Tu-330 had a wider cargo bay (4.0m).

GarryB wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Ilyushin, Yakovlev and Tupulev are also dead since many years.

But their design bureaus remain intact as departments in UAC as functioning aircraft design organisations.

Antonov split in a dozen directions and no longer exists and there is no real reason to revive it because all their tasks have been shared out to other departments. Any personnel would be better served being sent to those departments to help them get through their workload.

I am just saying to give the UAC the right to use the name. There is already SibNia that developed the modernized An-2 under another name, but it is currently waiting for a Russian engine.

As far as the An-124, they have already a group working on it in Russia.

And Russia should have all documentation for An-70 as well. We will see what they will do in the meanwhile.

GarryB wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:I do not like the il-276 and the base design of the il-76 is anyway old.
Already on paper the il-214 or Il-276 had much worse performances in comparison with aircraft of similar size and engine thrust.

Good enough to replace An-12s. Besides they have not even made them yet so if they wanted they could put more powerful engines on these aircraft and mount them for upper surface blowing like on the An-72 and Il-212 to improve performance in takeoff and landing.
(...)
Listen to yourself!!!! You say scaling down the Il-476 to the Il-276 is too old and risky and low performance and then you suggest a plane that never completed development and never entered serial production would be good to scale down as a better option?

The il-214/il-276 does not need new engines, it need completely new development. The PS-90 would have been more than enough for it, the more modern PD-14M ,(rated at 15.5 tons of thrust). is even better than that. The problem was that it did not have already on paper good performance (payload vs range), for a aircraft with that size, MTOW and engine thrust. It was concerning everything much worse than the embraer c390, which has a older and less powerful engine (V2500 rated about 12 tons of thrust at takeoff).

It means that the c390, which has very similar size, with a slightly larger fuselage and older less efficient engines and with about 30% less thrust has much better payload/ range capabilities than the il-276 project


Unless it is all due to the fact that the Il276 is supposed to be incredibly sturdy and rugged and that the C390 is instead not able to land on an unprepared strip, it would mean that something is wrong in the il-276 project and that maybe too many things in the design were completely unoptimized and inefficient.

I am sorry that they are not working on revamping the Tu-330, but I would prefer something derived from An-70 than the il-276 as a an-12 replacement.
il-214/276 is from the same time when many mistakes were done on the Il-112v.

Until the il-212 is finished I doubt anyone from Ilyushin will be working on a an-12 replacement anyway, and with the Il-212 that will have probably a payload around 10-15 tons, it could also partially help for the lack of An-12 replacement.

GarryB wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote: One of my dream would be to see in the future some project as Russian-italian joint venture.

Experience of the Yak-130 seems to suggest it is not a great idea from the Russian perspective.

It seems that Italy got an aircraft design for about 80 million dollars with the rights to sell it to countries that hate Russia.

Not sure that was the best deal for Russia really.

Yeah, Italy  is not a sovereign country and had been America's little bitch since 8 September 1943.
In 1978 the americans even had their thugs kidnap and kill one of the Italian leading politicians (from the pro American party Democrazia Cristiana) and former prime minister (Aldo Moro) because he tried to form a coalition together with the opposition party (the communist party).

Until Italy is part of NATO and EU it does not make sense to have too close cooperation.

The PD-35 is the wrong size for the An-124... two engines would not be powerful enough and four engines would be too powerful.

A shortened variant with light weight materials would need only 2 engines; theoreticaly, 4 of them could power the late An-225 which is a bigger superstreched An-124, even if with a somewhat reduced payload. So, these derivatives could be used as lower cost stopgaps or alternatives to Il-106 & Slon, even if many years from now.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Il-76MD/476s can be stretched to the Il-76F size to add to their value

The issue is that the cargo hold of the il-76 is relatively narrow (3.2 m wide) for its weight payload capabilities, limiting the size of possible payloads to be carried.

true, but all of the similar USAF C-141s & some C-130-30s were streched/produced & used for decades, eliminating the need to make even more of them, thus saving $Ms.
Dozens of An-12s & C-130s also have narrower fuselages than the Il-76s, A400Ms, C-5/17s but r still being used.
And the old An-22s from 1965 vintage that r not worth keeping past 2024 r also narrower than the An-124.

The issue is that the cargo hold of the il-76 is relatively narrow (3.2 m wide) for its weight payload capabilities, limiting the size of possible payloads to be carried.

And yet the issue is not big enough to make them change the design?

They put or remove horizontal plugs to lengthen or shorten the fuselage and they add or remove sections of the wing to increase and decrease the wing area and length, but they can't add width at all?

It could still be useful for something or for standard pallets since it would mean having anyway more internal space, but that still means that everything wider than 3.2 m will need to be carried by a An-124.

You have identified a potential problem but surely they recognised such an issue and the fact that they have not done anything to remedy the problem suggests to me that the problem is not pressing.

Standard aircraft pallets are intended to help standardise loads and their movement and I suspect standard transport pallets will fit.

Il-76 aircraft were used to fly T-72 tanks to Serbia so they can carry tanks.

What is it that is so crucial to move that they can't carry?

Even the project for An-70 and the Tu-330 had a wider cargo bay (4.0m).

Neither of which are in production right now... you would think if the extra cargo bay width meant anything at all that at least one would be a priority for manufacture sometime soon.

I am just saying to give the UAC the right to use the name.

But why?

UAC already has good names for their aircraft designs.

Sounds like the problem of my great grandfathers hammer... it has had three new handles and four new heads... but it is my grandfathers hammer... its got bluetooth and wifi and is USB compatible.

Recently the Antonov name has been dragged through the mud as a company that doesn't make anything but takes your money and makes all sorts of promises... and in the end screws you over.

They made some great planes but they are over.

Loving a rock band is one thing but having it reform from people who weren't in the original band and start making music again... well it is not the same.... that old band is never coming back... it is gone.

There is already SibNia that developed the modernized An-2 under another name, but it is currently waiting for a Russian engine.

A good design, but when the composite materials lead to a cheap simple aircraft costing 5 million dollars then it has suddenly lost that appeal.

For every new engine they put into serial production there are going to be a lot of new designs that can be realised... why keep digging up old designs when new ones are everywhere?

As far as the An-124, they have already a group working on it in Russia.

That will be good to completely update the An-124s they have in storage... they can rip out the old avionics and equipment and put in all new stuff so it is a useful platform that is modern and safe, but once those aircraft are flying it makes more sense to build prototypes of potential new aircraft and get them moving forward than to make more old planes.

And Russia should have all documentation for An-70 as well.

Many of the components in the An-70 were Ukrainian... something like 70% were Russian, which means a change of design and introduction of more Russian produced components and probably a need to test it again... for something the Il-476 could probably already do with propeller engines.

The il-214/il-276 does not need new engines, it need completely new development.

The whole point of scaling down the Il-476 is so that it isn't a completely new development... it is a modification of a mature in service design with decades of operations under its belt.

It means that the c390, which has very similar size, with a slightly larger fuselage and older less efficient engines and with about 30% less thrust has much better payload/ range capabilities than the il-276 project

It is not a Russian plane built in Russian factories in Russia so its performance is irrelevant.

A Russian Il-276 could have above wing mounted engines for better rough airfield performance and they will likely have a range of different engine types they could use on the aircraft if they wanted to to shift performance one way or another.

I am sorry that they are not working on revamping the Tu-330, but I would prefer something derived from An-70 than the il-276 as a an-12 replacement.

Production capacity for the Tu-204/214 will mean the Tu-330 will likely have to wait a while before being a real option and the An-70 is as dead in the water as any other paper plane with Ukraine written all over it.

il-214/276 is from the same time when many mistakes were done on the Il-112v.

The Il-112 is being fixed with more powerful engines... fitting PD-16 engines on an Il-276 in the above wing position for overwing blowing effect would greatly improve rough field performance and take off and landing performance too.

Until the il-212 is finished I doubt anyone from Ilyushin will be working on a an-12 replacement anyway, and with the Il-212 that will have probably a payload around 10-15 tons, it could also partially help for the lack of An-12 replacement.

That is true, but the point of the Il-276 was always that it was a modificatuon of an aircraft design already in serial production... which should speed things up.

And improve commonality between the two types which was never present with the An-12 and Il-76.

Yeah, Italy is not a sovereign country and had been America's little bitch since 8 September 1943.

Maybe it is 200 D chess being played by the Master Putin where in the 1990s Putin and the Clintons got together and worked out this plan to destroy the corrupt west and create a much more fair world by smashing Americas monopoly and power based on the US dollar and control of international trade etc etc.

Or not. Nice story, but who cares about the story if the result is the same and Europe grows a pair and stops being such pussies to the US and start thinking for themselves and other countries instead.

A shortened variant with light weight materials would need only 2 engines; theoreticaly, 4 of them could power the late An-225 which is a bigger superstreched An-124, even if with a somewhat reduced payload. So, these derivatives could be used as lower cost stopgaps or alternatives to Il-106 & Slon, even if many years from now.

Except that the Il-106 is already a smaller AN-124 essentially, and a Slon will be essentially a slightly enlarged An-124 then changing the An-124 design for stopgaps would be redundant.

There is no huge demand right now for lots of transport capacity by air, so they should get the engines right and the designs right and take their time.

Except that the Il-106 is already a smaller AN-124 essentially, and a Slon will be essentially a slightly enlarged An-124 then changing the An-124 design for stopgaps would be redundant.

By ur own logic about the Il-276 being common with the Il-76, why bother with the Il-106 when u have the An-124 to scale down?
Even better, as with the Tu-330 being common with the Tu-204- by the same token, the Il-96 could get high wings, a wider fuselage, rear/front ramps & cargo doors for the fraction of the cost of developing an entirely new heavy plane on a par with the C-17!
Also, instead of the Il-276, why not produce this An-74-400: Proposed stretch model of the An-148 (An-74TK-300) with a fuselage insert to extend its length by 26 ft (8 m) and uprated engines?

Tsavo Lion wrote:

GarryB wrote:Except that the Il-106 is already a smaller AN-124 essentially, and a Slon will be essentially a slightly enlarged An-124 then changing the An-124 design for stopgaps would be redundant.

By ur own logic about the Il-276 being common with the Il-76, why bother with the Il-106 when u have the An-124 to scale down?
Even better, as with the Tu-330 being common with the Tu-204- by the same token, the Il-96 could get high wings, a wider fuselage, rear/front ramps & cargo doors for the fraction of the cost of developing an entirely new heavy plane on a par with the C-17!
Also, instead of the Il-276, why not produce this An-74-400: Proposed stretch model of the An-148 (An-74TK-300) with a fuselage insert to extend its length by 26 ft (8 m) and uprated engines?

There is a bit of unclarity behind what should be the il-106. The original project from the 90s had 80 tons max payload and a cargo hold wider (5.8m) than the one of the An-22 (4.4 m) but narrower than the An-124 (6.4m) and no front ramp.

A few years ago instead they proposed to reuse the name il-106 for something that would have been basically a copy of the an-124 but under another brand.
Same cargo hold (width, height and length) of the An-124 and with a front ramp as well.

Then it has been used also for non fully clarified PAK-VTA.

Ah, the an-22 has a hold much narrower than the an-124 but considerably wider than the one of the il-76. (And wider than the one of the Chinese Y-20).

As far as the An-74 stretch, it doesn't make much sense, since it is not anymore in production but since the il-212 is basically a modern An-72/74, possibly a stretched version of the il-212 could be done as well.

That is probably a good compromise, also because I doubt Russia could get another brand new military cargo project in serial production before 2035 (apart from il-76, An-124, il-212 and possibly an eventual military cargo variant of the Ladoga).

For the An-70, since most tests were already done it would be mainly the issue with import substitution of the Ukrainian components and possibly developing a turboprop variant of the PD-8V for the Mi-26 or using that to make a brand new propfan to fully replace the D-27 engine.

The turboprop derivative of the PD8v could be ready by 2029, which is around the same time needed for a full import substitution for the other An-70 parts (let's suppose a similar scope as the SJ-100 import substitution).

Of course a brand new propfan would be more problematic and time consuming, unless they could someway use the core of the PD-8 with the fan/propeller of the D-27, since that latter was made in Russia by Aerosila.

Note: I am not saying that Russia will do the An-70, also because it is a design from the late 1980s. I am just saying that it could be in serial production and in service in 5 years (without any help needed from current Ukrainian Antonov, except the formal IP ownership), provided that they are able to reuse all the data from previous design and testing, and only needing import substitution and set up of production in a new plant.

At this point probably the best, if there is time, would be to think about it after the Il-212 finished development tests and is in production, and design a new aircraft using previous design (from An-70, Tu-330 and Il-212) and test experience as a starting point, but that means it will not be ready before the second half of the next decade.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:There is a bit of unclarity behind what should be the il-106. The original project from the 90s had 80 tons max payload and a cargo hold wider (5.8m) than the one of the An-22 (4.4 m) but narrower than the An-124 (6.4m) and no front ramp. A few years ago instead they proposed to reuse the name il-106 for something that would have been basically a copy of the an-124 but under another brand. Same cargo hold (width, height and length) of the An-124 and with a front ramp as well.

it may have more revisions in the future, as circumstances usually change.

Ah, the an-22 has a hold much narrower than the an-124 but considerably wider than the one of the il-76. (And wider than the one of the Chinese Y-20).

that's why producing new An-22s will make the VTA a well rounded force, saving them $ in the long run!

As far as the An-74 stretch, it doesn't make much sense, since it is not anymore in production but since the il-212 is basically a modern An-72/74, possibly a stretched version of the il-212 could be done as well.

could be, if they make it lighter & compatible with jet engines!

For the An-70, since most tests were already done it would be mainly the issue with import substitution of the Ukrainian components and possibly developing a turboprop variant of the PD-8V for the Mi-26 or using that to make a brand new propfan to fully replace the D-27 engine.

well, if The medium transport Tu-330 is an aircraft capable of replacing the outdated AN-12 and Il-76TD. Volumetric unification with the base model Tu-204 solves the problem of support in comparison with similar STS projects, in particular the Ukrainian AN-70 and the European FLA., then the proposed An-188 jet powered variant with 50T payload (a streched 1 could haul even more); with its wider cabin, it could replace many Il-76s & even A400Ms.
The twin engine An-112KC variant could substitute the Il-78s & carry 33T, making the Tu-330 unnecessary to bother with!

By ur own logic about the Il-276 being common with the Il-76, why bother with the Il-106 when u have the An-124 to scale down?

Because the Il-476 has just entered serial production and is going to be the standard medium lift medium ranged transport for the Russian military for probably the next 30 years and possibly more.

The An-124 is a stopgap design that is going to be used until the PD-35 engine design is ready for serial production and then the Il-106 and the Slon are ready for serial production and then as its airframe life is used up it will fade from use.

As the Il-106 is the newest design it would be ideal to scale it in two families... one for the AN-12 and IL-76 weight classes, and with a bigger internal cargo bay in the AN-22 and AN-124 payload weight class... in the former it can have PD14 engines (or PD14 for the four engined Il76 replacement and PD-16 for the An-12 replacement with a bit more reserve power for operating on rough airfields... in addition to the PD16s being mounted above the wing for FOD protection.)

For the AN-22 and AN-124 replacement you can make the internal cargo bay bigger and have PD-35 engines for both (2 and 4 respectively)... the main difference being wing and fuselage size/length.

But really the new wing and redesign of the Il-476 has already incorporated new materials and new design techniques and new production methods so it just makes sense to use the Il-476 design for the An-12 and Il-76 replacements.

Even better, as with the Tu-330 being common with the Tu-204- by the same token, the Il-96 could get high wings, a wider fuselage, rear/front ramps & cargo doors for the fraction of the cost of developing an entirely new heavy plane on a par with the C-17!

The Il-96 is the wrong shape to be a roll on roll off cargo plane, which would limit the internal space for cargo.

They are not going to be making Il-96s in enormous numbers, the Il-106 is already better than the C-17.

The Tu-330 makes sense too because it will be related to aircraft that are being produced now, so conversion to making transport models wont be expensive or difficult.

Also, instead of the Il-276, why not produce this An-74-400: Proposed stretch model of the An-148 (An-74TK-300) with a fuselage insert to extend its length by 26 ft (8 m) and uprated engines?

Because neither of those two aircraft are in production for Russia, while creating a production factory for the Il-276 means it could make the Il276 or the Il476 depending on which type was most in demand.

As far as the An-74 stretch, it doesn't make much sense, since it is not anymore in production but since the il-212 is basically a modern An-72/74, possibly a stretched version of the il-212 could be done as well.

Funny you even mention a stretch of the Il-212 because when it was the Il-112 it was the worst plane in the world wasn't it?

What is the cargo bay dimensions of the Il-112/212?

Wouldn't that be important if you think the Il-276 is not good for the same reasons?

For the An-70, since most tests were already done it would be mainly the issue with import substitution of the Ukrainian components and possibly developing a turboprop variant of the PD-8V for the Mi-26 or using that to make a brand new propfan to fully replace the D-27 engine.

And finding some place to make them... with the Il-276 they could make a prototype at one of the factories making Il-476s and they could build a new factory to make Il-276s that could make Il-476s until the Il-276 is ready for serial production...

Depending on export demand the factories could then swap and change between producing the two types, whose only difference is wing size, fuselage length and number of engines being fitted, which would make scaling production easier to manage and cheaper.

The turboprop derivative of the PD8v could be ready by 2029, which is around the same time needed for a full import substitution for the other An-70 parts (let's suppose a similar scope as the SJ-100 import substitution).

All the Russian parts for the Il-476 and therefore also the Il-276 are already in serial production.

Note: I am not saying that Russia will do the An-70, also because it is a design from the late 1980s. I am just saying that it could be in serial production and in service in 5 years (without any help needed from current Ukrainian Antonov, except the formal IP ownership), provided that they are able to reuse all the data from previous design and testing, and only needing import substitution and set up of production in a new plant.

I don't agree, those engines and props wont be ready for operational use in 5 years time and I rather doubt the effort to Russianise the design will be appreciated by Russian companies already straining to produce parts and equipment for existing types in the volumes required.

Adding a new engine type that no other platform is likely to be using is also a bit wasteful too.

PD-14s and PD-16s and PD-35s and PD-8s have aircraft waiting for the engines to enter serial production...

it may have more revisions in the future, as circumstances usually change.

It was a good aircraft let down by its engines being Ukrainian... now they are going to make parts themselves then they can continue operating a bit longer, but I think a custom designed aircraft like the Il-106 with PD-35 engines will be cheaper to operate and fill lots of roles that the An-124 was a little bit too big for and the Il-476 didn't have the payload capacity for. The Il-106 could carry a little more over a much greater range or a lot more over a similar range.

that's why producing new An-22s will make the VTA a well rounded force, saving them $ in the long run!

The Il-106 has a larger internal payload bay and is a much newer design... and with PD-35 engines will be cheaper and more efficient too.

could be, if they make it lighter & compatible with jet engines!

The Il-212 is an Il-112 with above wing PD-8 jet engines (similar to the An-72) for rough short field operations.

The twin engine An-112KC variant could substitute the Il-78s & carry 33T, making the Tu-330 unnecessary to bother with!

The Tu-330 could be made in the factories currently making as many Tu-204/214 airliners as fast as they can when the demand is not so high because MS-21 and Superjet production meets their needs.

Making Tu-214s for replacing a range of old military types (Tu-154M, Yak-40, Il-20, Il-22, Il-38, etc etc etc), could be done in combination with developing the Tu-330 cargo aircraft based on the Tu-214 for commonality in the military fleet.

The An-112KC is what now? A twin engined An-70?

You are not getting it.... the Il-276 makes sense because it is based on the Il-476 which is in serial mass production right now. The Tu-330 makes sense because it is based on the Tu-204/214 which is in serial mass production now.

The An-70 is not in mass serial production and is unlikely to be so there is no advantage to trying to make a light twin engined version to replace the An-12.

The An-124 is a stopgap design that is going to be used until the PD-35 engine design is ready for serial production and then the Il-106 and the Slon are ready for serial production..

it may still take many years for it to be ready, if ever! we all have many wishes but most of them take too long to come true, if at all!

The Il-96 is the wrong shape to be a roll on roll off cargo plane, which would limit the internal space for cargo.

they could fall back on the proposed IL-96-500T: https://www.rusaviainsider.com/ilyushin-reveals-il-96-500t-wide-body-freighter-project/ The existing IL-96-400T can haul 92T for 5K km: http://brinkley.cc/AC/il96t.htm

They are not going to be making Il-96s in enormous numbers, the Il-106 is already better than the C-17.

they r in low rate production & more of its variants can be ordered, produced & tested faster than ever changing "paper" Il-106 that is still waiting for engines.

The Tu-330 makes sense too because it will be related to aircraft that are being produced now, so conversion to making transport models wont be expensive or difficult. ..The Tu-330 could be made in the factories currently making as many Tu-204/214 airliners as fast as they can when the demand is not so high because MS-21 and Superjet production meets their needs.

it may take a long time before all the Tu-214s, MC-21s and Superjets,etc. r built- they need 1.036K of them to replace Boeings & Airbuses, so I doubt they'll bother with it any time soon. Tupolev converted many bombers to transports & cargo planes before, but unlike Antonov & Ilyushin, hadn't built a single cargo plane from the ground up AFAIK.

that's why producing new An-22s will make the VTA a well rounded force, saving them $ in the long run!

The Il-106 has a larger internal payload bay and is a much newer design... and with PD-35 engines will be cheaper and more efficient too.

It's & PD-35s r a long way from being proven, while the An-22 had many world records & proved itself, incl. in war
& disaster zones. It can carry 4T more than the C-17 while burning less fuel.

The Il-212 is an Il-112 with above wing PD-8 jet engines (similar to the An-72) for rough short field operations.

I hope it'll be better than the An-72/74! IMO they could save more by restarting the An-72 production instead, even if redesigned.

Making Tu-214s for replacing a range of old military types (Tu-154M, Yak-40, Il-20, Il-22, Il-38, etc etc etc), could be done in combination with developing the Tu-330 cargo aircraft based on the Tu-214 for commonality in the military fleet. ...the Il-276 makes sense because it is based on the Il-476 which is in serial mass production right now. The Tu-330 makes sense because it is based on the Tu-204/214 which is in serial mass production now.

developing at designing stage isn't = actually building something; if the gov. isn't paying for them past single digits prototype numbers, the Tu-330 will remain in limbo until it does.

The An-70 is not in mass serial production and is unlikely to be so there is no advantage to trying to make a light twin engined version to replace the An-12.

it could still be revived, esp. since they spent so much $ on its development & it would be a big waste to pass up on such a good plane that could become a base for many variants, just like the An-12/24 were when they 1st came out. In fact, the Chinese already capitalized on all of them with their Y-7/8/9/20s!

GarryB wrote:Funny you even mention a stretch of the Il-212 because when it was the Il-112 it was the worst plane in the world wasn't it?

What is the cargo bay dimensions of the Il-112/212?

Wouldn't that be important if you think the Il-276 is not good for the same reasons?

Because the il-112v was a failed project with a lot of mistakes.
The il-212 is basically a complete redesign, probably keeping only the fuselage dimensions and some internal systems of the il-112v.

I am just hoping that the new project is a proper aircraft and not a chicken that can barely jump and not fly.
As far as the cargo bay width of the il-212, if it is the same as the il-112v it is about 2.4 meters, which would be adequate for a 12 tons payload transport aircraft.

They could do also a redesign of the fuselage in comparison to il-112v and make a slightly larger cargo bay, similar to that of the proposed an-178 (about 2.7 m width x 2.7 m height  vs the about 2.45 m of the original il-112v)

It would be narrower than the one of the An-12, but it would be ok to fill the gaps for a while, especially if later they work on a newer plane for payloads of  about 30 tons.

The PD-8 engines are more than enough to cope with it.
(I mean for a 10-15 tons payload aircraft, not for the 30 tons aircraft).

Ah, the cargo dimensions of the proposed il-276 (if the same width and height as the Il-76 cargo bay) would have been perfectly adequate for a transport aircraft of such capacity (20 to 25 tons payload).

The reason I do not like it is mainly due to its lackluster performance (at least on paper).
Especially due to the experience of the underfunded and neglected projects of the Ilyushin Buro of the early 2000s and 2010s with the il-112v, which had on paper performances inferior to the aircraft it was supposed to replace and in reality as not even able to fly at all  carrying a payload without a complete redesign (and it is not just an issue of the engines, as the engines of the An-26 were less powerful than the Klimov TV7-117 of the il-112v).

Unfortunately both transport projects (il-112v and il214/il-276) on which Ilyushin worked in the period 2005-2020 had performance issue. It is almost like they forgot how to design and build good transport planes

Hopefully they learned their lessons and the il-212 (which is not just a il-112v with jet engine, but practically a complete redesign with some internal systems and possibly fuselage width as commonality) will be what they need and a successful project.

I believe and hope that the "new" Ilyushin design buro will be up the challenge and successful on the new projects like the il-212, and a possible derivative / modern version of the stillborn il-106 project later (as real An-22 successor) (in addition to the civilian passenger planes, of course).

I mentioned a stretch of the il-212 because I do not know yet its size. They could do, for example, a base version with about 10 tons payload and a cargo bay 9 meter long (as the an-72) and a stretched version with longer cargo hold and increased payload.

Furthermore there is quite a large need of newly built il76 and derivatives in the next 5-10 years (after that probably production could be stopped) and I doubt the same assembly line will have the resources to build il-276 as well. If they need to build a new assembly line (there or elsewhere) then some of the advantage of the il-276  will disappear. And I do not believe it makes sense to wait until the production of il-76 ends sometimes in the next decade.

GarryB wrote:
I don't agree, those engines and props wont be ready for operational use in 5 years time and I rather doubt the effort to Russianise the design will be appreciated by Russian companies already straining to produce parts and equipment for existing types in the volumes required.

Adding a new engine type that no other platform is likely to be using is also a bit wasteful too.

PD-14s and PD-16s and PD-35s and PD-8s have aircraft waiting for the engines to enter serial production

The turboprop PD-8S will be done eventually and since the turboshaft PD-8V for the mi-26 helicopter is in development, a turboprop derivative should not be too difficult. (Note, as far as I understood, they plan to keep using the same gearbox used by the original D-136 of the  Mi-26 (which is a turboshaft derivative of the D-36 turbofan used by the An-72).

As far as a propfan like the D-27, the core of that engine is also a derivative of of the D-36 engine of the an-72/74.

And the gearbox and propellers of the D-27 have been designed and made in Russia by Aerosila.
If needed Russia can do the same that they are doing for the PD-8 (new core with SaM-146 LP system).

Since both the core of the PD-8 and the propellers and gearbox of the D-27 have been designed and made in Russia, it should not be something impossible to be done in 4-5 years.

And both the PD-8S and the eventual new propfan would not be only for that transport aircraft. They could be used also for other applications like a carrier borne cargo or AWACS plane (i.e. the old yak-44, which was also supposed to be powered by 2 D-27 propfan) or a new maritime patrol aircraft to replace the il-38.

I know that they proposed an enlarged derivative of the il-114 with 4 turboprop engines, but I believe it is also due to the lack of a more powerful modern turboprop, so the availability of a PD-8S could also be beneficial for that.

it may still take many years for it to be ready, if ever! we all have many wishes but most of them take too long to come true, if at all!

It will take as long as it takes and there is not much anyone can do about it.

they could fall back on the proposed IL-96-500T

To make such an aircraft viable they would need PD-35 engines, but even if they did make it, it would not be a replacement for the AN-124 or Il-106 or Slon, just as the Boeing 747 in cargo transport plane form is no replacement for a C-17 or a Galaxy C-5.

they r in low rate production & more of its variants can be ordered, produced & tested faster than ever changing "paper" Il-106 that is still waiting for engines.

An Il-96 wont ever be able to carry any vehicle in the Armata or Kurganets or Boomerang or Typhoon or DT-30 family of vehicles.

It is not a military transport.

it may take a long time before all the Tu-214s, MC-21s and Superjets,etc. r built- they need 1.036K of them to replace Boeings & Airbuses, so I doubt they'll bother with it any time soon.

The Tupolevs being made are stop gap aircraft, while the MS-21s and Superjets are the brand new state of the art replacements... once they can rack up the production of both of the new types the Tupolevs will probably be relegated to cargo roles or perhaps sold and replaced with new model MS-21s and Superjets of different stretched and shrunk designs depending on their needs.

When this happens Tupolev production can shift to converting the former airliners to cargo planes or for military aircraft to replace obsolete military types... and by then they could make a Tu-330 prototype or three for testing and development.

By the time the Tu-330 is ready for serial production they will likely have made enough Tu-214s to replace most of the military types they needed to replace so the factories can shift to making Tu-330s... probably mid 2030s.

In the mean time the AN-12s of all types can be replaced by an above wing model of the Il-276. The use of a more powerful engine could be used to increase weight to allow more fuel for better range or to increase payload to 25 or 30 tons if needed. PD-16s should be plenty in terms of extra power.

, while the An-22 had many world records & proved itself, incl. in war
& disaster zones. It can carry 4T more than the C-17 while burning less fuel.

And yet they took no effort to make any more. I like the An-22... being smaller and lighter than the An-124 it is a very good option when you don't need to carry a very heavy load or you don't need to fly too far with it.

I hope it'll be better than the An-72/74! IMO they could save more by restarting the An-72 production instead, even if redesigned.

The Il-112 was designed for what they needed it for and the Il-212 is a modified Il-112 with revised wing and engines.

The An-72 was supposed to replace the An-24/5/6 but never did.

developing at designing stage isn't = actually building something

The point is that the production of the Il-212 and the Il-276 and eventually the Tu-330 is because the production capacity for the aircraft they are based on is in current serial use or ready for it in the case of the Il-212.

Anything else you might consider like a shortened An-70 or An-140 or whatever, is that there is no production capacity for it now.

if the gov. isn't paying for them past single digits prototype numbers, the Tu-330 will remain in limbo until it does.

I think all Tupolevs production capacity is focused on Tu-214 and Tu-160/PAKDA right now, but over time production for the Tu-214 will shift and perhaps focus on military production instead of its current civilian focus once that civilian demand is largely catered to.

it could still be revived, esp. since they spent so much $ on its development & it would be a big waste to pass up on such a good plane that could become a base for many variants, just like the An-12/24 were when they 1st came out. In fact, the Chinese already capitalized on all of them with their Y-7/8/9/20s!

Which design department in the UAC has the excess capacity and interest to revive it... most of the documentation and development knowledge is in the Ukraine and probably mostly went west to Airbus or Boeing. Even the people who went to Russia wont be able to carry a lot of important information in their heads...

The An-70 is a missed opportunity that likely wont be coming back.

They might make a turboprop engine based on a PD series engine and perhaps fit them to an amphibous jet like the A-42 for the military to replace the Be-12 May, and it is possible that such a turboprop might be used on an Il-476 to create an An-70 like analogue, but reviving the entire aircraft and programme does not seem worth it to me when it will only be made in relatively small numbers just for the VDV.

If they could add an MPA type to replace the Il-38, but I would say a Tu-214 would be better suited to such a role anyway.

Because the il-112v was a failed project with a lot of mistakes.
The il-212 is basically a complete redesign, probably keeping only the fuselage dimensions and some internal systems of the il-112v.

The Il-112 was exactly what they wanted but was let down by lack of a powerful enough engine. A 4-5K hp engine and it would be just fine... in fact the talk about the improved engine for the Il-114 suggests they could already have a suitable engine for the job.

The Il-212 is an Il-112 with new wings and new engines and a new fuel system... but otherwise the same.

As far as the cargo bay width of the il-212, if it is the same as the il-112v it is about 2.4 meters, which would be adequate for a 12 tons payload transport aircraft.

So do you notice a pattern?

As the aircraft payloads go up the diameter of the bay gets wider.

2.4 metres for a small transport, 3.2m for a medium sized transport, 5.8 metres for the next size up (Il-106), and 6.4 for the big planes (Slon and An-124).

BTW 3.2m is good enough to carry a Malva 152mm truck mounted gun vehicle...

They could do also a redesign of the fuselage in comparison to il-112v and make a slightly larger cargo bay, similar to that of the proposed an-178 (about 2.7 m width x 2.7 m height vs the about 2.45 m of the original il-112v)

They have continued to work on the engine fitted to the Il-112V and Il-114 so perhaps the current version might allow a further size increase, but I would think a new 4-5K hp engine would make an enlarged cargo bay and useful thing too.

With the Il-212 being made they can take their time with the Il-112V... it might be that the jet engine and above wing engine mount might lead to a significant improvement in performance that makes the Il-112 no longer so necessary.

It would be narrower than the one of the An-12, but it would be ok to fill the gaps for a while, especially if later they work on a newer plane for payloads of about 30 tons.

They will need to coordinate what they do so they don't waste time making aircraft that do the same job.

Why modify the Il-212 to be more like the An-12 when it is supposed to be replacing the An-24/5/6 and An-72.

A scaled down Il-476 in the form of an Il-276 already has a 3.2m wide cabin.

The reason I do not like it is mainly due to its lackluster performance (at least on paper).

The idea behind it is commonality with the Il-476, but it doesn't have to have the same engines... you could put more powerful engines to boost performance by allowing heavier operating weights with bigger payloads and more fuel to be carried if that is critical.

Hopefully they learned their lessons and the il-212 (which is not just a il-112v with jet engine, but practically a complete redesign with some internal systems and possibly fuselage width as commonality) will be what they need and a successful project.

All the articles I have seen for the Il-212 say it is an Il-112 with new engines and wings and fuel system but otherwise the same because the Il-112 was what they wanted and it will be faster to develop than starting again from scratch.

Furthermore there is quite a large need of newly built il76 and derivatives in the next 5-10 years (after that probably production could be stopped) and I doubt the same assembly line will have the resources to build il-276 as well. If they need to build a new assembly line (there or elsewhere) then some of the advantage of the il-276 will disappear. And I do not believe it makes sense to wait until the production of il-76 ends sometimes in the next decade.

The difference between the Il-476 and the Il-276 is the number of engines and the length of the wing and the fuselage... they could probably be made on the same assembly line without modification.

That is another advantage of making the Il-276 because any extra lines you make to build them you can build Il-476s while they are testing the Il-276 prototypes.

When the Il-276 is ready for serial production they can convert the Il-476 factories to run Il-276 lines too.

They will likely need a lot of Il-476 production capacity for world wide demand... it was a very popular aircraft, and the An-12 was too so countries that buy Il-476s might also buy Il-276s too.

The turboprop PD-8S will be done eventually

Will it though?

A gas turbine version for the Mi-26 makes commercial sense but if they are making the Il-212 to use a jet engine then pressure for a turboprop engine is not so important.

I know that they proposed an enlarged derivative of the il-114 with 4 turboprop engines, but I believe it is also due to the lack of a more powerful modern turboprop, so the availability of a PD-8S could also be beneficial for that.

Didn't they say they had improved the engine for the Il-114/112 to 4K hp which has improved performance levels for the standard aircraft?

It will take as long as it takes and there is not much anyone can do about it.

but if it takes too long, priorities will likely change & they'll be back at square 1.

they could fall back on the proposed IL-96-500T

To make such an aircraft viable they would need PD-35 engines, but even if they did make it, it would not be a replacement for the AN-124 or Il-106 or Slon, just as the Boeing 747 in cargo transport plane form is no replacement for a C-17 or a Galaxy C-5.

the PS-90A1 or D-18T good enough, & the VKS initially wanted 6 of them; as I suggested it could also be made with high wing, wider cross section & even a T/H tail if need be, on a viariant with 6 engines. The IL-96-400/500Ts could augment each other as dual use planes, leaving An-124s & Il-476s for more rough field work, if need be. Btw, the B-747 was originally designed as a mil. cargo plane with a conventional tail before it became a C-5 with a T tail.

An Il-96 wont ever be able to carry any vehicle in the Armata or Kurganets or Boomerang or Typhoon or DT-30 family of vehicles.
It is not a military transport.

it could be made into 1, as mentioned above.

And yet they took no effort to make any more. I like the An-22... being smaller and lighter than the An-124 it is a very good option when you don't need to carry a very heavy load or you don't need to fly too far with it.

that's why they may still decide to make more of them, incl. for special missions like AWACS & UCAV carriers. An amphib variant could also be an option.

Anything else you might consider like a shortened An-70 or An-140 or whatever, is that there is no production capacity for it now.

if they consider them to be better for their needs & more feasable, there will be production capacity created. Ur arguments r logical, but the Russians don't always use logic, & if/when they do, it's THEIR logic.

Which design department in the UAC has the excess capacity and interest to revive it... most of the documentation and development knowledge is in the Ukraine and probably mostly went west to Airbus or Boeing.

I doubt it, but even if true, China may have the missing plans since Antonov helped with the Y-20 design, so they'll be gladly shared with the Russians.

..reviving the entire aircraft and programme does not seem worth it to me when it will only be made in relatively small numbers just for the VDV.

not only- many variants could be created for other applications, just like with the Y-9, C-130Js & A400Ms. Those planes can haul cargo, drop it & SOFs, carry UAVs, refuel others, perform medevac/C2/EW missions, bomb, & fight fires.

If they could add an MPA type to replace the Il-38, but I would say a Tu-214 would be better suited to such a role anyway.

a 4 engined Il-114 derivative would better suit them IMO, given their geography & they way they do such things.

but if it takes too long, priorities will likely change & they'll be back at square 1.

Developing a brand new high tech jet engine is not something you do on a whim and is not something you should vacillate between doing or not doing, because it takes an enormous investment in time and technology and materials to design and make a brand new engine like the PD-35... they had plans when they started that project and they knew they would not have a working engine in serial production before 2029 or so, so it is not a surprise that the Il-106 and Slon are not being shown at MAKS events.

Setting up stopgap solutions means you are not stuck with nothing at all, but don't invest too much time and energy and money into the stopgap because it is just a stopgap and is going to be replaced when the planned for designs are ready and in serial production.

the PS-90 is good enough, & the VKS initially wanted 6 of them; as I suggested it could be made with high wing, wider cross section & even a T/H tail if need be, on a viariant with 6 engines.

The PS-90 maxes out at about 18 tons thrust, I would say that perhaps now they are putting the D-18TM into production for the AN-124 then putting four of them on an Il-96 would give it more thrust at about 25 tons per engine, it would also make better use of the technology they have spent money to keep the D-18T engines viable.

Having said that when they are ready having two PD-35s would be a better option as the Il-106 and Slon will also use the same engines too... and having engine commonality would be useful.

The IL-96-400/500Ts could augment each other as dual use planes, leaving An-124s & Il-476s for more rough field work, if need be.

Developing and testing and keeping all these types operational distracts from the proper solutions that were decided long ago.

You have to be sure your stopgap doesn't end up costing more than its replacement.

that's why they may still decide to make more of them, incl. for special missions like AWACS & UCAV carriers. An amphib variant could also be an option.

There are no factories in Russia to make An-22s, they would have to digitise the design which is going to take 5 years and probably another three years to update it with new materials and technology to make it useful... so by the time it would be ready for serial production the Il-106 could be ready for production too and it would be a more useful aircraft.

if they consider them to be better for their needs & more feasable, there will be production capacity created.

Not true.

Think of it in terms of the M16 rifle... they have been trying to replace it since it entered service and every time the replacement rifle has not been superior enough in performance to justify the new design or the new ammo it used to get the superior performance.

Just being slightly better is not good enough, it has to be significantly better to justify the time and expense to stop production and to set up production for the new types and to serial produce them... but in this case you wont know their full potential until they have been fully developed and tested to serial production level.

Ur arguments r logical, but the Russians don't always use logic, & if/when they do, it's THEIR logic.

You are quite right there, sometimes their decisions don't seem logical, but much of the time it has to do with things we amateurs don't consider... like ownership IP rights, and how many engineers and designers you have available to work on a prototype design to get it to the serial production stage... which is a lot of work.

Even just digitising the designs can take time but once you do digitise it it becomes very valuable because you can test with different materials with different properties via super computer and you can practise and test the design based on the digital model.

I doubt it, but even if true, China may have the missing plans since Antonov helped with the Y-20 design, so they'll be gladly shared with the Russians.

The Russian departments of UAC/OAK have their own design solutions they will likely want to put forward rather than going back so far for such an old design.

They have clear patterns of development... the first step is normally for the company that made the product to take it as far as it can go without a complete redesign from scratch. Things like the AK-74 became the AK-12, The T-72 became the T-72BM3, the T-90A became the T-90AM, the Su-27 and Su-27UB became the Su-35 and Su-30, but in the background they also had the same company or a different company looking at the flaws in the design and starting from scratch creating a brand new design that eliminates all the problems... we haven't seen the new rifle, but the tank is the T-14 with all the crew in the hull front under the heaviest armour and an unmanned turret, the fighter is the Su-57 with built in stealth and internal weapon bays.

So from what we hear... which is not definitive, is that they are going to have to replace the An-12 and the An-22, they have the capacity to continue production of the An-124 if they want, and they are continuing the production of the Il-76 in the form of the Il-476 which was a very successful aircraft.

They have lots of new aircraft approaching serial status, but most are waiting on their engines.

Putting the An-12 and An-22 and the An-70 for that matter into production is very very unlikely because in each case there are other options that simply make more sense.

Pushed into a corner they could make more An-124s but I don't think they will until they have refurbished the ones in storage... they will have the capacity to keep the engines working for as long as they need them... but lots of engines, including the PD-35 are approaching serial production status so of course they will try to use them too. Right now the PD-14 and PD-16 would be in demand, but once they are serially produced then they can speed up other engine designs.

not only- many variants could be created for other applications, just like with the Y-9, C-130Js & A400Ms. Those planes can haul cargo, drop it & SOFs, carry UAVs, refuel others, perform medevac/C2/EW missions, bomb, & fight fires.

But most of those extra roles don't benefit from turboprop engines and lower flight speeds... in fact HALO operations work best with jet powered transports to increase the height of release.

a 4 engined Il-114 derivative would better suit them IMO, given their geography & they way they do such things.

They have talked about the Il-114 for MPA and for patrol roles in the Navy, but I have to say it sounds like the maker of the plane making their aircraft sound more appealing by making it sound more versatile than it will actually be.

Like Yakovlev claiming the Yak-130 can be a drone or a light fighter or EW aircraft or several other types of roles... they will never develop unless a customer pays for it.

For the An-22 it is as Garry is saying.
Russia has no production equipment for it and the design is not digital. It would require a lot of effort to be done.

As far as China, I doubt that they will give their projects to Russia for free, even if they are basically all derived from soviet projects and made with Antonov Support by Antonov engineers (actually the Y-9 (which is a modernised stretched variant of the An-12 (produced in China with the Y-8 name) and the Y-20 (an enlarged An-70 with jet engines and a tail copied from the C-17) are the only post soviet successful Antonov projects.

But for sure their design has been fully digitalised and they even used model based system engineering.

The easiest for Russia to get something to replace the An-12 and An-22 before 2030 would be to obtain the design and manufacturing data and support from China for the Y-9 and Y-20 and bring them in production in Russia with modern Russian engines.

Since China has done it many time in the past with soviet projects and with Russian and Ukrainian support, it would be nice to have something back.

For the Y-9, Russia could either develop it like this (but either they put back the old AI-20 in production, or they wait for the PDV4000 to be developed), or they could design a new wing to be used together with the PD-8S turboprop (which could be ready by 2029 or even earlier).

The aircraft could be assembled in Samara (Aviakor) or in Voronezh or a brand new aircraft plant to be done in the Donbass (i.e. Mariupol or Donetsk).

And for the Y-20, Russia could just put there 4 PS-90 engines and the work would be done. They would just need China's support in localise production in a short time and possibly they could adapt some of the Il-476 systems and parts (hydraulics, landing gears, avionics etc) for it.

Maybe later they can also think about a new aircraft with 2 PD-35 engines and 80 tons payload but that can be done without hurry after having something else in production as stop gap.

This is probably the fastest and easiest way to fully cover all bases of military transport before 2030, but it needs China's support.

From small to large:
5 tons payload (An-26 replacement) rear ramp cargo version of TVRS-44 Ladoga

10-15 tons payload (An-72/74 replacement) Il-212

25 tons payload - Y-9 derivative (possibly again with Antonov Designation) (3.2 m wide cargo hold)

Il-76 (3.2 m cargo hold)

Y-20 derivative (possibly with Antonov Designation (4 m cargo hold) for the payloads which are too bulky for the il-76.

An-124 - new production (which could start in 2027)

In addition, in alternative to the Slon also possible an enlarged An-124 brought to the size of An-225 but with 4 PD-35 engines instead of 6 D-18T engines, of course with a new name which is not in Ukrainian :p.

..when they are ready having two PD-35s would be a better option as the Il-106 and Slon will also use the same engines too...

these planes may take a lot longer to materialize, if ever, while the Il-96-500T just needs a green light & money allocated to start.

You have to be sure your stopgap doesn't end up costing more than its replacement.

the Il-96-400T/500T, if built in large numbers, may serve for decades & not as a stop gap, just like the B-747F & C-5 combo. A stretched variant could lift more than the Il-106/An-22 & be on a par with the early C-5/An-124.

There are no factories in Russia to make An-22s, they would have to digitise the design which is going to take 5 years and probably another three years to update it with new materials and technology to make it useful...

it's still useful as is, it's just too hard to maintain now & the airframe is not safe anymore, but if only a dozen is built, there's no need to digitize & redesign.
1 An-22=4 An-12s or 1.45 Il-76s in payload, so 10 of them=40 An12s or 14.5 Il-76s. Any special missions variants may be converted back to transports, if need be.

Putting the An-12 and An-22 and the An-70 for that matter into production is very  very unlikely because in each case there are other options that simply make more sense.

the "other options" may have even more obstacles, according to the Murhy's Law: "if it can go wrong, it will!" The field of aviation is as unforgiving as it can get.

Pushed into a corner they could make more An-124s but I don't think they will until they have refurbished the ones in storage... they will have the capacity to keep the engines working for as long as they need them...

exactly!

but lots of engines, including the PD-35 are approaching serial production status..

that may take a lot longer than u anticipate, & their performance may not be adequate. A case in point: the quad Il-96 lost to Western twinjets- the Russians would love to have it modified for 2 engines to be competive, but no such localized engines existed for many years, & to this day.

not only- many variants could be created for other applications, just like with the Y-9, C-130Js & A400Ms. Those planes can haul cargo, drop it & SOFs, carry UAVs, refuel others, perform medevac/C2/EW missions, bomb, & fight fires.

But most of those extra roles don't benefit from turboprop engines and lower flight speeds... in fact HALO operations work best with jet powered transports to increase the height of release.

The C-130Js, A400Ms & AG600Ms can also do SAR missions; amphib An-22s could do it too & support ships/subs in the mid Pac/Atlantic or Indian oceans.

They have talked about the Il-114 for MPA and for patrol roles in the Navy, but I have to say it sounds like the maker of the plane making their aircraft sound more appealing by making it sound more versatile than it will actually be.

before the Il-18 & Il-38 based on it, there was the Il-14; the Il-214 would free up the Tu-204/214 for other roles.
Russia IMHO doesn't need a direct P-8 counterpart.

The easiest for Russia to get something to replace the An-12 and An-22 before 2030 would be to obtain the design and manufacturing data and support from China for the Y-9 and Y-20 and bring them in production in Russia with modern Russian engines.

I don't agree. I think the Il-276 has been suggested because it has commonality with the already in serial production Il-476... an Il-276 is essentially a twin engined Il476 with a shorter fuselage and smaller wings with the engines moved to the top of the wings... not only could they have a flying prototype made in two years (2026) but the factories currently making Il-476s could make Il-276s without conversion or retooling or retraining.

More importantly it would mean they could set up extra factories to make either and then shift between the production of both types as the markets require new aircraft... it is rather more flexible and already paid for than putting different aircraft into production.

Regarding replacement for the An-22 I would say for the first few years there wont be one.

When the PD-35 engines get close to serial production they can be used in a Il-106 and Il-96 prototypes, and then the factory that was upgrading and refurbishing the in storage An-124s can shift to making Il-106s and produce a Slon prototype.

The Slon does not have to be some flying wing alien space craft of totally radical new design and new technology... it is an An-124 with almost An-225 level engine power.

And for the Y-20, Russia could just put there 4 PS-90 engines and the work would be done.

PS-90 engines are being used in a lot of aircraft, including Il-476 types... I would say a shift to PD engines would be best because that should be the direction they are heading in.

This is probably the fastest and easiest way to fully cover all bases of military transport before 2030, but it needs China's support.

Well why not wait till the Ukraine conflict is over and start buying Airbus and Boeing aircraft instead... Aeroflot wants to do that...

From small to large:
5 tons payload (An-26 replacement) rear ramp cargo version of TVRS-44 Ladoga

10-15 tons payload (An-72/74 replacement) Il-212

25 tons payload - Y-9 derivative (possibly again with Antonov Designation) (3.2 m wide cargo hold)

Il-76 (3.2 m cargo hold)

Y-20 derivative (possibly with Antonov Designation (4 m cargo hold) for the payloads which are too bulky for the il-76.

An-124 - new production (which could start in 2027)

Interesting but why bother making a rear ramp model of a plane when the solution was already designed and is just waiting for an engine (Il-112).

The Il-212 makes sense, but the Chinese plane does not... they wont let Russia make their plane... what if they keep making them and sell them to the rest of the world without permission?

The solution is time and engines and Il-112 with the further upgraded new engines they have continued to improve, the Il-212, Il-276, Il-476, Il-106, refurbished stopgap An-124s and Slon.

In addition, in alternative to the Slon also possible an enlarged An-124 brought to the size of An-225 but with 4 PD-35 engines instead of 6 D-18T engines, of course with a new name which is not in Ukrainian :p.

With 40 years of operational experience with the An-124 I am sure they can improve the design and scale it up to make Slon... the core is the new PD-35 engines.

these planes may take a lot longer to materialize, if ever, while the Il-96-500T just needs a green light & money allocated to start.

It s a different type of transport plane.

the Il-96-400T/500T, if built in large numbers, may serve for decades & not as a stop gap, just like the B-747F & C-5 combo. A stretched variant could lift more than the Il-106/An-22 & be on a par with the early C-5/An-124.

The core problem for the Il-96-500T is:

the current management of the company believes the project has no future.

it's still useful as is, it's just too hard to maintain now & the airframe is not safe anymore, but if only a dozen is built, there's no need to digitize & redesign.

They can't make them without a digitisation and redesign... lots of stuff in the original design is not made any more so it needs new equipment and a redesign.

The aircraft has been cancelled... if they were going to the effort of putting it back into production then they would keep existing types flying.

If they can't keep existing types flying then they can't make new ones.

1 An-22=4 An-12s or 1.45 Il-76s in payload,

Only if you ignore range and assume max payloads are being carried everywhere.

The real world is much more complicated than that. If you have a couple of helicopters that need to be taken to an airfield in the Far East, they might only total 40 tons, but to fly them 5,000km it doesn't matter how many An-12s you have because they likely wont fit. The An-22 could probably do it easily. The Il-476 might be able to do it easily too. But if the plane that delivers that cargo then has to come back with a 100 ton cargo then you actually want to send an An-124, because if you send an Il-476 you will need to send an An-124 back anyway and if all your An-124s are in the European part of Russia then sending it in the first place with that first load makes sense... especially if there are other loads it could carry too so it is not just flying with a 40 ton payload.

the "other options" may have even more obstacles, according to the Murhy's Law: "if it can go wrong, it will!" The field of aviation is as unforgiving as it can get.

No. The other options are more likely because they have more going for them and less obstacles... a shrunk down Il-476 is a safer bet than a Chinese plane licence produced in Russia presumably with Chinese engines... if it is a stopgap then you wouldn't bother making new engines for it.

that may take a lot longer than u anticipate, & their performance may not be adequate.

Or they might be ready sooner than expected. It does not make sense to adopt different aircraft... especially foreign aircraft, on the off chance your engine is not ready. You work out what is holding things up and you fix it.

Even if the PD-35 engine only puts out 30 tons of thrust in the first versions... that doesn't matter... eventually with time it will improve and get to its spec level.

These planes are going to take time to get into serial production anyway.

A case in point: the quad Il-96 lost to Western twinjets- the Russians would love to have it modified for 2 engines to be competive, but no such localized engines existed for many years, & to this day.

Russian airlines did not fund Russian aircraft makers or Russian engine makers by trusting them and buying their products, so of course foreign stuff will work out more desirable... and where has that left them right now?

If you buy Airbus or Boeing or Chinese aircraft then you are only screwing yourself.

We are talking about military aircraft so they have to look to Russian designs and products.

The C-130Js, A400Ms & AG600Ms can also do SAR missions; amphib An-22s could do it too & support ships/subs in the mid Pac/Atlantic or Indian oceans.

In the core role of being a transport plane low flight speed and lower altitude operations does not benefit the aircraft... in fact they are bad for performance.

C-130s and An-12s fly through the weather while Il-76 can fly over it... and get there faster.

before the Il-18 & Il-38 based on it, there was the Il-14; the Il-214 would free up the Tu-204/214 for other roles.

The Il-214 is the MTA... when India pulled out they looked more at the Il-276 instead.

Russia IMHO doesn't need a direct P-8 counterpart.

They do need an Il-38 replacement and speed and range are useful... perhaps a Tu-142 with two PD-35s...

70 tons of thrust vs 15 x 4 = 60K hp... would be interesting...

The solution is time and engines and Il-112 with the further upgraded new engines they have continued to improve, the Il-212, Il-276, Il-476, Il-106, refurbished stopgap An-124s and Slon.

what if they don't get needed engines for a long time? If old planes must be replaced/augmented ASAP; I don't want to repeat myself & rest my case!

these planes may take a lot longer to materialize, if ever, while the Il-96-500T just needs a green light & money allocated to start.

It s a different type of transport plane.

not much different from the proposed Il-106! A stretched & wider B-747F or A-380F isn't radically different from a C-5 or An-124.

The core problem for the Il-96-500T is:

the current management of the company believes the project has no future.

that was said 5 years ago; we live in a very different world now.

The aircraft has been cancelled... if they were going to the effort of putting it back into production then they would keep existing types flying. If they can't keep existing types flying then they can't make new ones.

that's according to ur logic; they often let things slide, according to an old saying: "a muzhyk (man) won't make a sign of a cross [with a hand across his chest, in the Orthodox fashion] until he hears a thunder coming"; when things get out of control they start acting.

1 An-22=4 An-12s or 1.45 Il-76s in payload,

Only if you ignore range and assume max payloads are being carried everywhere.

if it wasn't that urgent, Shoigu wouldn't have demanded doubling the # of active cargo planes in the VTA.

The real world is much more complicated than that. If you have a couple of helicopters that need to be taken to an airfield in the Far East, they might only total 40 tons, but to fly them 5,000km it doesn't matter how many An-12s you have because they likely wont fit. The An-22 could probably do it easily. The Il-476 might be able to do it easily too. But if the plane that delivers that cargo then has to come back with a 100 ton cargo then you actually want to send an An-124, because if you send an Il-476 you will need to send an An-124 back anyway and if all your An-124s are in the European part of Russia then sending it in the first place with that first load makes sense...

makes sense, but knowing their mentality, more likely those 2 helos, if urgently needed, would be flying there cross country overland with several stops to refuel.

a shrunk down Il-476 is a safer bet than a Chinese plane licence produced in Russia presumably with Chinese engines... if it is a stopgap then you wouldn't bother making new engines for it.

Russia has her own engines to fix on the Y-9/20 or any other Chinese plane. China isn't Ukraine to raise obstacles in reengining planes as was with the Russian owned An-124 fleet

Or they might be ready sooner than expected. It does not make sense to adopt different aircraft... especially foreign aircraft, on the off chance your engine is not ready. You work out what is holding things up and you fix it. ..We are talking about military aircraft so they have to look to Russian designs and products.

"if the shoe fits, wear it!" imported planes can be sold later after they r done their useful service. Russia now isn't the USSR that had most of its aircraft locally designed & built from mid 1950s till 1990.

Even if the PD-35 engine only puts out 30 tons of thrust in the first versions... that doesn't matter... eventually with time it will improve and get to its spec level.

"eventually" may take a lot longer than a few years which Russia may not have to move forward in her development/defense.

These planes are going to take time to get into serial production anyway.

that's why cooperating with China will buy them some time; instead of "waiting for the good weather by the seaside".

Russian airlines did not fund Russian aircraft makers or Russian engine makers by trusting them and buying their products, so of course foreign stuff will work out more desirable...

back than there were no planes that could compete; it was "either  buy Western planes or get out of business with those noisy & gas gazzling engines on Soviet morally outdated planes". indeed, many airlines were merged with Aeroflot or died if they tried to use them.

The C-130Js, A400Ms & AG600Ms can also do SAR missions; amphib An-22s could do it too & support ships/subs in the mid Pac/Atlantic or Indian oceans.

In the core role of being a transport plane low flight speed and lower altitude operations does not benefit the aircraft... in fact they are bad for performance. C-130s and An-12s fly through the weather while Il-76 can fly over it... and get there faster.

back in mid 1980s I saw An-12s & An-22s flying high enough to have white contrails, so they can fly above most of the weather, at least in E. Europe.

The Il-214 is the MTA...

I meant 4 engine Il-114 derivative & gave it my own designation, forgetting about the MTA

GarryB wrote:Interesting but why bother making a rear ramp model of a plane when the solution was already designed and is just waiting for an engine (Il-112).

Because the existing engine (TV7-117) is more than enough for a 5 tons plane and even more powerful than the engine of the An-26.

You need more powerful engines only if you want to have a transport aircraft with payload capabilities analogue to the An-8 (or to the Italian C-27J), i.e. about 10 tons.

Or if you need an aircraft of the same size, but able to operate in extremely hot and high conditions, like the An-32, which was basically an An-26 modified with the much more powerful AI-20 DM engines (uprated version of the An-12 engines, which had almost twice the power of the AI-24 engine of the An-26 (5100 hp Vs 2800hp) in order to be able to operate in the high mountains near the borders between India, Pakistan and China.

So yeah a propeller version of the il-212 (with another designation) could be done in the future, when the more powerful engine ie available but it should be a 10 tons payload aircraft with a longer cargo hold, not a 5 tons payload aircraft.

Furthermore the TVRS-44 Ladoga is being done and it is supposed also to be capable of rugged operations. Its cabin size is exactly the same as the An-140, so it should be acceptable for the kind of loads a 5 tons max payload plane is supposed to carry.

Why spend time and money to fix the propeller version of the il-112V into a 5 tons payload aircraft when they have another plane in the same niche that is being developed and could be ready in a rear ramp configuration by 2027, when there are so many "holes" in the other transport niches?  As we said, both An-12 and An-22 replacement do not exist.

And the il-214 /276 does not exist either, at least until Russia will say something new about it.

Especially since now they are using the experience of the design and work on the stillborn il-112v to develop a proper An-72 replacement in the 10 tons (or slightly more) payload niche?

GarryB wrote:
With 40 years of operational experience with the An-124 I am sure they can improve the design and scale it up to make Slon... the core is the new PD-35 engines.

The An -124 could be back in production with newly built modernised D-18T engines by 2027, the Slon has been only in early development.

If the improvement in comparison to the An-124 are minor and mainly engine related, than it is questionable if a new design and a costly and long new test campaign is worth. (Also because I doubt the Slon can be ready before 2035).

I would think having An-124 produced when possible and later modernised with new (and more capable) engines when available sometimes in the next decade would be more efficient.

And use the spare design capabilities to work on something that is really missing instead (An-22 and An-12 replacements), especially if the ideas of getting Chinese help for setting up in Russia fully localised production of the  stopgaps (Chinese modernisation of the An-12 and Chinese enlarged An-70 with jet engines) is not considered.

Soviet union developed the An-12, An-26, An-22, il-76, An-72 and An-124 across more than 30 years.
Russia cannot replace all of them at the same time.
Especially there is no need to replace the more modern of them, which needs only a new engine and new internal systems.

I am glad that future project departments of TSAgi and UAC continue to think and work on interesting new aircraft models and proposals (it is their job), but early design from future projects departments does not mean that the aircrafts will be developed. In all aerospace companies, both in Russia or the west, the amount of initial projects studied by future design departments and projects actually developed is probably 5 to 1 or 10 to 1.

GarryB wrote:They will need to coordinate what they do so they don't waste time making aircraft that do the same job.

Why modify the Il-212 to be more like the An-12 when it is supposed to be replacing the An-24/5/6 and An-72.

A scaled down Il-476 in the form of an Il-276 already has a 3.2m wide cabin.

Yeah, that cargo size is perfectly adequate for an aircraft in the An-12 class.

Again, what I did not like is that already on paper the performances were bad.

I mean it was supposed to have modern engines with 15.6 tons of takeoff thrust (only 12% less thrust than the thrust rating of the PS-90 in the proposed Tu-330) but it has much lower payload (20 tons Vs 35 tons) and range than the proposed Tu-330 (even if the tu-330 has a wider cabin than the one of the il-276).

The problems are not the engines.

So something went wrong with that development (il-214/il-276)

If they are able to get it to become something decent and  with good performance for at least next 30 years, yes that would be a good thing. Otherwise it would be almost better to put back the An-12 in production (especially since the Chinese have already a modern, stretched version of it which would need only import substitution).

Finally, noone will buy the export version of the Il-276 if its performance are so much worse than the An-12 (Y-9) and of the embraer C-390.
Western aligned nations will buy C130 or C-390 (or possibly the larger A-400M (European knock-off copy of the An-70)), while non western aligned will buy the Chinese modernised An-12 (Y-9)

Incidentaly, they want make a lot of civilian cargo Tu-214s.
I'm sure some will be used by the military, as needed.

https://armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2024/boeing-develops-revolver-system-enabling-c-17-aircraft-to-launch-multiple-x-51a-hypersonic-missiles https://interestingengineering.com/military/c-17-hypersonic-missiles-boeing-revolver

IMO, the VKS could also equip some of its Il-76s & An-124s with a similar system.
the latter could carry up to 2x more, or 24 HSMs.

Tsavo Lion wrote:https://armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2024/boeing-develops-revolver-system-enabling-c-17-aircraft-to-launch-multiple-x-51a-hypersonic-missiles  https://interestingengineering.com/military/c-17-hypersonic-missiles-boeing-revolver

IMO, the VKS could also equip some of its Il-76s & An-124s with a similar system.
the latter could carry up to 2x more, or 24 HSMs.

So, Boeing is developing something for launching something that is just a failed experimental project...
In the meantime both NGAD than Increment Three of F-35 has been "shifted to the left" also, so sorry but I consider such kind of news a sign of utter desperation.
Guske na magli...

what if they don't get needed engines for a long time?

They have already said the same engines going into the Il-114 have been improved to 4,000hp and reliability has been improved too, which is actually what they were trying to achieve to put them into the Il-112V.

They seem to want to get the Il-212 flying first because conceptually it is the best solution as the An-72 was developed to replace the An-24/25/26 but largely failed to do so while the Il-212 should be able to replace all four types with one design that is based on the Il-112V.

Once the Il-212 is in serial production it should be able to replace all of those types with better performance, though the extra engine power might mean a higher cost for lighter payloads.

The Il-112 with the further improved engine can then be developed... which should be straight forward because the issue seems to be the engine so with the upgraded engine it should be all good to go.

If old planes must be replaced/augmented ASAP; I don't want to repeat myself & rest my case!

The only old plane remaining is the upgraded Il-476 which has been given a full upgrade and improvement from wings to engines etc etc, while the An-124 has been russianised and upgraded to a new level, and the soviet engines have been put back into production so old aircraft can be taken out of storage and used for a few years more. The upgrade of the An-124s internals is useful because it can be used as a basis for the An-22 replacement (whatever it is called and whatever it looks like) and also for the Slon which with its extra power will be essentially a scaled up aircraft with a 180 ton payload capacity. The latter two aircraft are based around the PD-35 engines and so there wont be a lot of progress till they are serially made.

not much different from the proposed Il-106! A stretched & wider B-747F or A-380F isn't radically different from a C-5 or An-124.

The Il-106 has a rear ramp door. No model Il-96 I have seen has that.

that was said 5 years ago; we live in a very different world now.

That is true, but the question really for the next 5 to 10 years is does Russia go heavy and very long range or do they sort out smaller lighter types first and then look at the bigger types later when the PD-35, which is a more suitable engine becomes available?

that's according to ur logic; they often let things slide, according to an old saying: "a muzhyk (man) won't make a sign of a cross [with a hand across his chest, in the Orthodox fashion] until he hears a thunder coming"; when things get out of control they start acting.

OK, and your logic suggests panic can change behaviour... the problem in this case is that I very much doubt no one has bothered to digitise the design of the An-22, and to do so would take a minimum of 3-4 years, plus perhaps another 1 or two years to upgrade the design and improve it based on new materials and design technology.

Worst case scenario if you were happy to put the An-22 back into production then it would make more sense to just take the new engines and new props the An-22 used from the latest upgraded Tu-95 and fit them to the Il-106 design which was designed to replace the An-22 and would need rather less modification and might already be digitalised.

The money invested to upgrade the engines and propellers of the Bear should give any aircraft fitted with such engines the best thrust and fuel efficiency possible and it is paid for out of the military budget.

But I think they will prefer PD-35 jet engines for slightly more speed.

if it wasn't that urgent, Shoigu wouldn't have demanded doubling the # of active cargo planes in the VTA.

The fastest way to increase the number of cargo planes is to start producing the smaller lighter ones in volume.

makes sense, but knowing their mentality, more likely those 2 helos, if urgently needed, would be flying there cross country overland with several stops to refuel.

That would be another option, but would require experienced crews for those sorts of flights and perhaps the unavailability of the large aircraft to move them.

Russia has her own engines to fix on the Y-9/20 or any other Chinese plane. China isn't Ukraine to raise obstacles in reengining planes as was with the Russian owned An-124 fleet

The only reason they might consider such a purchase would be if they could be ready to go straight away without fuss and without too much changes.

If they have to replace engines and probably avionics (which could be western) then it really just makes sense to make their own from their own.

Russia now isn't the USSR that had most of its aircraft locally designed & built from mid 1950s till 1990.

That is where it is headed... except it will be made from the 80s onwards...

"eventually" may take a lot longer than a few years which Russia may not have to move forward in her development/defense.

A few years delay here and there are not important as long as the direction is maintained and lessons learned.

that's why cooperating with China will buy them some time; instead of "waiting for the good weather by the seaside".

Russia is certainly cooperating with China, but Chinese copies of Soviet designs tweaked with new ideas is not a sunny day.

back than there were no planes that could compete; it was "either buy Western planes or get out of business with those noisy & gas gazzling engines on Soviet morally outdated planes". indeed, many airlines were merged with Aeroflot or died if they tried to use them.

That is what they said to destroy the Russian civilian aircraft industry. The Tu-204 is a good aircraft and buying such aircraft would have allowed them to improve the designs and create really competitive designs which is why western companies probably gave reduced prices initially to get into the market and then pump the prices up when they could no longer afford to swap back.

back in mid 1980s I saw An-12s & An-22s flying high enough to have white contrails, so they can fly above most of the weather, at least in E. Europe.

Weather and air conditions can cause such things to form at all sorts of altitudes and is not a good indication of what altitude they are at.

I meant 4 engine Il-114 derivative & gave it my own designation, forgetting about the MTA

You can play around endlessly with different ideas... the new Il-212 with two over wing PD-8s to replace the An-24/25/26 and An-72 could have bigger wings and extended fuselage and four PD-8 engines and be a replacement for the An-12 instead of the Il-276.

The options are endless, but it would be good if they actually moved forward with something.

Because the existing engine (TV7-117) is more than enough for a 5 tons plane and even more powerful than the engine of the An-26.

That is not really fair because at the time they decided the TV7 engine wasn't powerful enough it was only running at 3,500hp, but with work they now have it running at 4,500hp and also with improved reliability for the Il-114.

Part of the appeal of using that engine was commonality between the Il-112V cargo plane, Il-114 and the Mi-38 helicopter... and a few other uses including drones etc.

The increased internal volume led to a bulkier shape which required more power to keep within safety margins and performance expectations.

So yeah a propeller version of the il-212 (with another designation) could be done in the future, when the more powerful engine ie available but it should be a 10 tons payload aircraft with a longer cargo hold, not a 5 tons payload aircraft.

The propeller version with a similar payload to the Il-212 and increased power engines would just be repeating what the Il-212 is surely?

A 5 ton payload smaller lighter Il-112V with a good reliable engine would be cheaper to operate and might be able to operate from a wider range of air strips at much lower weights than the bigger jet engine powered Il-212.

Furthermore the TVRS-44 Ladoga is being done and it is supposed also to be capable of rugged operations. Its cabin size is exactly the same as the An-140, so it should be acceptable for the kind of loads a 5 tons max payload plane is supposed to carry.

Except the Il-212 should already be able to do all that faster and further.

Why spend time and money to fix the propeller version of the il-112V into a 5 tons payload aircraft when they have another plane in the same niche that is being developed and could be ready in a rear ramp configuration by 2027, when there are so many "holes" in the other transport niches?

Why introduce a totally new aircraft type (to the military) for a role the Il-212 could either do or a turboprop version (Il-112) could do?

The TV7 engine has already been improved and uprated for its role in the Il-114 so to all intents and purposes the Il-112V should actually be ready to go.

As we said, both An-12 and An-22 replacement do not exist.

The Il-106 existed. Talk about modifying the An-124 to do the job is an option even if I don't like it. Creating a new Slon transport type with four PD-35 engines is a design project and therefore a smaller lighter version with two PD-35 would make good sense too as a third option.

Regarding the AN-12 replacement the Il-276 and Tu-330 would represent the most sensible and most obvious solutions to the problem.

Especially since now they are using the experience of the design and work on the stillborn il-112v to develop a proper An-72 replacement in the 10 tons (or slightly more) payload niche?

The job was an An-24/25/26 replacement but problems with the intended engine led to a radical solution that mirrored the solution the An-72 used many decades ago.

A new jet engine to upgrade an aircraft having problems to create a solution to a different problem happens more often than you might think.

The An -124 could be back in production with newly built modernised D-18T engines by 2027, the Slon has been only in early development.

But Slon is the solution long term and is mostly just waiting for a suitable engine that is being developed now.

More important the Slon design can be scaled to create a smaller two engined version for An-22 replacement, and a four engined solution to the An-124s replacement problem.

Instead of putting the An-124 back into serial production it would make more sense to use those factories to upgrade and overhaul An-124s from storage for the next few years. Once that has been achieved they can make a few prototypes of Slon and mini Slon types to be fitted with 4 and 2 PD-35 engines respectively to start testing and work on the replacements for the An-124. Once they get them ready for serial production then those factories can start making both types... maybe focus on the twin engined model first, because a lighter cheaper heavy transport is probably more use to start out with, while the bigger heavier longer ranged aircraft is going to be more expensive to make and operate but perform roles other aircraft simply can't compete with.

If the improvement in comparison to the An-124 are minor and mainly engine related, than it is questionable if a new design and a costly and long new test campaign is worth. (Also because I doubt the Slon can be ready before 2035).

Having four PD-35 engines it performance should be rather better than the An-124s performance, and for lighter more common moves a twin engined design should be better and also rather cheaper.

I would think having An-124 produced when possible and later modernised with new (and more capable) engines when available sometimes in the next decade would be more efficient.

It is not about efficient... getting foreign types out of service is still a goal and Soviet is foreign.

And use the spare design capabilities to work on something that is really missing instead (An-22 and An-12 replacements), especially if the ideas of getting Chinese help for setting up in Russia fully localised production of the stopgaps (Chinese modernisation of the An-12 and Chinese enlarged An-70 with jet engines) is not considered.

The Slon programme could be intended to replace both the AN-124 and the AN-22 because the new engine power ratings make them ideal or twin and quad engine arrangements. If it was a PD-50 they were working on then a four engined aircraft might not make sense and a twin engined aircraft to replace the An-124 might make more sense, but in this case I would say the PD-35 makes sense for this purpose.

Soviet union developed the An-12, An-26, An-22, il-76, An-72 and An-124 across more than 30 years.
Russia cannot replace all of them at the same time.

Why not? The Il-212 is ideal for replacing the An-26 and An-72.... with different engines it can do the reduced range lighter payload jobs cheaper than a jet can in the form of an Il-112. The Il-476 is replacing the Il-76 and a shorter lighter version with two engines can replace the An-12. That just leaves the An-22 and the An-124 and a twin and quad engined version of Slon could do that with slightly larger and smaller versions... nothing fancy... bigger wings and longer fuselage for the four engined aircraft and shorter wings and shorter fuselage for the twin engined type. In fact if they ever do look at a more powerful variant of the PD-35, say a PD-45 or PD-50 the four engined model could get an H tail version for carrying outsized payloads on its back to perform role of a Guppy or An-225 type aircraft.

The M4 did that for a while and it has a payload capacity of less than 20 tons... most of the things it carried were large and bulky but not particularly heavy.

New space shuttles and strange type loads are likely as they expand their space endeavours.

I am glad that future project departments of TSAgi and UAC continue to think and work on interesting new aircraft models and proposals (it is their job), but early design from future projects departments does not mean that the aircrafts will be developed.

This is true but I would say the An-22 and An-12 are the most urgent in need of replacement and should be a focus, with a lightened twin engined version of the Slon the most suitable candidate for the An-22 and the shortened and twin engined version of the Il-476 being the most sensible solution for the An-12.

I think with the Tu-214 in production that a Tu-330 makes sense as well but for the moment they will be making as many for airlines and wont have a lot of time for other prototypes just yet.

In a few years time they can continue producing them and as some retire from use as they are replaced by superjets and MS-21s in commercial use they could be used to replace a lot of obsolete aircraft used by the military... which is when a Tu-330 should be developed and put into use too.

A 30-35 ton payload capacity would be rather useful for Boomerang type vehicles and also a decent margin regarding other types like Malva or Typhoon types.

In all aerospace companies, both in Russia or the west, the amount of initial projects studied by future design departments and projects actually developed is probably 5 to 1 or 10 to 1.

I agree and what normally kills them is lack of a suitable engine, which has been a real problem for quite some time, but solutions are arriving...

Again, what I did not like is that already on paper the performances were bad.

I remember reading somewhere that the internal volume of the Il-112 was bigger than the An-24/5/6 and that instead of 36 troops the Il-112 could carry 44, and it could carry them further and faster. I don't care if it doesn't stack up to modern foreign types.... the Russian military have requirements and if it meets those requirements then I am happy. They may have requirements for new vehicles or material to be carried in these aircraft necessitating they have larger internal volume, which of course is going to impact on drag and speed and the power needed to move it around.

The will change the specs to meet their needs so a shorter Il-76 with smaller wings should be just fine... as you point out most of their planes get wider as the payloads increase so using the Il-476 cargo bay shortened but not made narrower or lower should be a massive improvement over the cargo bay of the An-12.

The problems are not the engines.

So something went wrong with that development (il-214/il-276)

Or the problem is that Tupolev might have gotten their numbers wrong...

It is only when you make a flying prototype that you find out if you are overweight or not structurally strong enough to carry your rated load.

If they are able to get it to become something decent and with good performance for at least next 30 years, yes that would be a good thing. Otherwise it would be almost better to put back the An-12 in production (especially since the Chinese have already a modern, stretched version of it which would need only import substitution).

Putting the An-12 back into production doesn't make sense. Fitting the engines on the Il-276 above the wing like with the Il-212 will give it proper rough field performance, with jet speeds. If its performance is not good enough then later on you can just give it more power... fit PD-18s to it and use the extra power to carry more fuel and more payload to improve performance...

Basing the aircraft on the Il-476 is an advantage but you can be flexible too. They don't need to be identical.

Finally, noone will buy the export version of the Il-276 if its performance are so much worse than the An-12 (Y-9) and of the embraer C-390.

They might buy them if they can get Il-476s too and the commonality of the two types makes servicing and operational costs much much cheaper.

And why on earth do you think performance would be a lot cheaper. Maybe their specs are conservative?

Western aligned nations will buy C130 or C-390 (or possibly the larger A-400M (European knock-off copy of the An-70)), while non western aligned will buy the Chinese modernised An-12 (Y-9)

Will the rest of the world all buy Chinese planes?

Even if no one else buys them, Russia needs these planes and will use these planes and there are plenty of countries who don't want to spend that much to get western aircraft and choose not to buy Chinese planes. India for example might be interested in making Il-476 and Il-276 aircraft in Indian factories for example.

Iran might want to make Il-476 aircraft and Il-276s might interest them too...

Incidentaly, they want make a lot of civilian cargo Tu-214s.
I'm sure some will be used by the military, as needed.

There are a lot of military roles being performed by obsolete aircraft types that could do with being replaced... the Il-20, Il-22, the Tu-154Ms, the Il-38s... and not just that but introducing new types like AWACS and AEW as well as electronic aircraft for jamming and recon and other roles... perhaps even a platform dedicated to drones either for support or to defeat enemy drone use.

So, Boeing is developing something for launching something that is just a failed experimental project...

Not just that but such developments would make enemy transport planes a very high priority so fighters like MiG-35s wandering around the airspace armed with R-37s would make even more sense. It could easily detect large transport planes at enormous distances and shoot them down. Will not matter if that transport plane is carrying support equipment or attack missiles... shooting it down would be important.

An-24/25/26

there is no An-25 plane!
But the An-225 design could be shortened & widened & with 4 suitable engines it could be as good, if not better, than the Slon.
1 variant could be similar to this concept: https://www.businessinsider.com/radia-worlds-largest-cargo-plane-wind-turbine-blades-2024-3  https://radia.com/windrunner

It could deliver wind turbine blades, fuselages, helos, boats, missiles/rockets, pipes, bridge sections, & other outsize cargoes more efficiently than by other means.