Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

The demand of this kind of aircrafts declined in the 1990s, but has been lower still in the 2000s and the 2010s. You can analize the sales of every case of aircraft that in Included, and you can see how all them failed commercially, not only in the size cathegory of the An-2/4/6, but in all the size cathegories between roughly 2.2 and 45,6 tons of Maximum Take-Off Weight. Not only that, we can see how the sales of some of the previously successful aricrafts, like the An-72/71/74 and the An-24/26/30/32, neither reached 50 aircrafts in the last 25 years.

Don't you think there could be other factors coming into play here... like the fact that since 1994 there was very little money to buy new aircraft, and in fact they probably only kept producing until 1994 is because they didn't have anything else to sell?

The workers in those factories probably didn't get their last 3 years worth of pay because they were making old designs with no updates and they were likely trying to sell them for as much as they could get for them... in a market with no money.

All the planes you are listing are Ukrainian... the Ukrainian market is tiny for such aircraft and they had even less money to buy planes with... why would an existing Russian customer buy a foreign plane (Ukrainian) when its technology was no better than the same model they bought ten or 30 years before?

All it means not only a rejection of some concrete models based on their features, it means a rejection of the whole concept. And this is not only a trend of the Russian market, is also a worldwide trend.

Poor analysis. Remote communities in Siberia aren't suddenly going to get helicopters to fly stuff in, and they wont suddenly need five times the load capacity they needed before...

If they have been using an AN-2 for the past 50 years they obviously don't have the money for a modern fully fitted airfield to support a western aircraft or a heavy aircraft...

You talk about the remaining units of the An-2 in service. The source gives reference of 1526+17 still fliying active, but also gives reference of other 13999 that are not flying active. What happened with them? Obviously a big majority of them have not been purchasing neither new units of the supposed successors, neither of the An-2/4/6 (new or used), neither of other aircrafts in the size cathegories around. The whole concept is declining strongly in these size cathegories.

You ask a question and then give an answer to suit your view.

Show us satellite imagery of tiny airstrips in backwater places being replaced by modern fully equipped airfields with paved runways and you might have a point...

You continue saying it has not been other alternative than to keep the old units running. This is not right. Here again, you have the list of local alternatives, but no-one succeeded

OK... if these planes are of no use and obsolete why are they still being used?

Why would so many companies try to make replacement aircraft if there was no future for the type?

Previous attempts to replace the An-2 have failed because there was a serious problem with them... the AN-3 failed because the turboprop engine was too expensive and complex and difficult to maintain in the field... lots of other types failed because they didn't match the performance, or were otherwise not suitable...

The fact that companies continue to try and that ancient An-2 aircraft continue to be used proves there is a role for such aircraft and every reason to make a replacement.

Also foreign options can be included:

Foreign options can certainly be included but all come up short too... as well as being prone to sanctions.

The production of the An-148/158/178 is being stopped in Russia by lack of orders:

No, production is being stopped because the Ukraine refuses to continue cooperation on production... why support the Ukraine?

All the successors of the An-24/26/30/32 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Mi-38 size cathegory):

The Il-114 and Il-112 are both going into full production to replace the An-24 family in current operation in Russian military service and likely also Russian commercial service too.

All the successors of the Che-22 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Ka-60/62 size cathegory), and a good number of units of the L-410 remain in stock without finding a customer that purchase them:

10th cathegory Trainer aircraft: MiG-AT http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/migat.html
10th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-302 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/m302.html
10th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-202 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/m202.html
10th cathegory Transport aircraft: TVS 2DTS https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/sibnia/tvs-2dts/
10th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-208 Eagle http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t208.html

The TVS-2DTS is going into production with 200 ordered aircraft to start with.... as mentioned in this thread.

All the successors of the An-2/4/6 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Mi-Ansat size cathegory):

All for very good reasons... but the TVS-2DTS will be put into production and service...

Checking case per case the market reality that these models suffered and are suffering, my words are perfectly understandable.
To note that the far bigger and far more expensive An-124 surpassed 50 units produced completed.

50 years ago with Soviet aircraft all you saw were the aircraft that got into service and you never saw all the other prototypes that didn't make it... now you are seeing all the prototypes that don't make it.

Of course sometimes things make it because of political reasons instead of performance reasons... a non soviet producer of jet trainers was a purely political decision... just the same as the Mi-2 is a Russian design but was not made in the Soviet Union...

Any Ukrainian design will have no chance in the Russian military or civilian market... they simply can't be trusted for support and spares, so not only will new Ukrainian designs be eliminated from consideration, but existing Ukrainian designs will be a focus to get them out of service... or at least get them to use Russian components and engines etc.

Some people here still ignores the real data despite to have them in front of their face. They have their own narrative and nothing else matters.

The problem is that you are very selective in your data presentation, and sometimes you clearly misinterpret the data to suit your view.

A new model is emerging in a rough environment of failed bids in at least the last 25 years. The US engine is not the main problem of this model in order to succeed.

Previous failed bids are not relevant, but an American engine that could become sanctioned and unavailable really is the only actual problem for this new aircraft.

I said clearly before that both auxiliary aircrafts and helicopters must avoid contested areas. Not totally possible still, but achievable in the following 2 or 3 decades.

There is no reason why the Baikal cannot be fitted with a DIRCMS pod... in fact that could be its role flying around jamming IR guided anti aircraft missiles for UAVs to operate more safely...

I explained many times how I consider the concept of combat helicopter very likely will evolve toward unmanned technologies in order to avoid the high risks of the current use of manned combat helicopters.

Manned or unmanned wont change the risks... it just effects the potential outcomes... if you need to send a recon platform in to look at enemy forces... a manned aircraft with full self defence suite and flown with skill by a pilot protecting his own ass is more value than a straight and level flying UAV that gets shot down all the time because it is such a sitting target.

UAVs otherwise can be many times expendable material. It makes not them obsolete.

But there is the rub... to make them expendable they must be really cheap... so no DIRCMS... and no expensive equipment... which makes them less effective and less survivable.

I would expect in the future what they will actually do is use manned platforms sitting further back with long range sensors while UAVs go in... the manned platform can monitor the enemy fire and determine what system is where, while the UAVs get blown out of the sky... the data collected by the manned platform together with the close up visuals and data from the UAVs before they are destroyed can be used to launch standoff attacks and artillery attacks against positions that have revealed themselves...

The competence between aircrafts and helicopters (also aircrafts) is something like the competence between a PC and a MAC. Different systems to solve basically the same roles. In some cases aircrafts prove to be more effective, in other cases helicopters prove to be more effective. And this is the area where helicopters become dominators of the market.

No. That is totally wrong.

A better analogy would be a palm top computer and a desktop computer... a palm top computer can pretty much go anywhere you can (some models even for a swim), while desktop computers require more infrastructure... like a wall plug and a desk and chair to operate.

If you have to do hours of office work you don't use the palm top, but if you have to leave your office and go out to a client a palm top can often take the software you need without having to lug everything, or get your client to have to go to the office to see your pitch.

But my concerns on the engine and sanctions I hope that Rostec eventually fix this issue.

Perhaps the problem will fix itself... set up local production for the engine and then when the US slaps on the super heavy sanction package it keeps on harping on about you can nationalise the design and refuse to recognise US patents and copyright...

The market for these products has been and will always be there.

Which suggests production of these aircraft is long over due and will be very well received by the market... boosting transport link performance almost always boosts an economy... the Chinese had a period where they installed high speed trains in China for their internal transport needs and they found it greatly improved their internal economy...

But I think some of these projects will be put on hold till they come up with alternative engines to use cause many of them want to use western engines (For what ever god forsaken reason other than corruption) and now they wont be able to obtain them.

Licence production or steal the design... in the short term and Russian engine in 5 years time when the current engine design has been fully studied.

Super high fuel economy is not the biggest issue... even with a less efficient engine it still is better than the original...

On the point of airbus and cessna etc etc some manufacturers stick to what they know and don't enter markets where the current manufacturers are strong and have years and years of expertise just like cessna doesn't try to build large passenger jets. Small aircraft regardless of manufacturer is still in high demand around the world especially where it's either too dangerous or climate or simply there isn't a need for larger aircraft in that situation. I believe Rostec are not stupid and have done there own expert analysis for the market and have decided that there is a need for for such aircraft.


I agree with GarryB on the engine copy it then build your own copy not recognising usa patent etc. Although the Honeywell engine does have its faults. Rostec have done an agreement as stated to buy X amount of engine then production will take place in Russia perfect time to copy it. Lol in til russian engine is ready

GarryB, you try to argue against every real evidence. Nothing that agrees with the reality of market.


The argument of the crisis of the 1990s is not valid at this point, when we see some modern aircrafts also succeeding and surpassing clearly the 50 units produced completed even in early stages of its cycle of life. The Su-Superjet100, Yak-130, Mi-Ansat, Ka-226 and Il-103 surpassed this level of sales in this time of crisis. Other previous models like the Mi-8 family, Ka-27 family, Mi-26/27, Il-76, Tu-204/214 reached it, and even the Tu-154 (predecessor of the Tu-204/214) almost reached this level of 50 units produced completed since 1994, despite the competence of the Tu-204/214.

All them are included in this scheme, previously commented, and fit almost all the cathegories:

eehnie wrote:https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p250-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#212784

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

- Transport aircrafts to be successful in the 2nd to 6th cathegories (since 20 tons payload).
- Airliner aircrafts to be successful in the 3rd to 6th cathegories (since 95-100 passengers + mid range >5000Km).
- Helicopters to be successful in the 6th to 12th cathegories (until 20 tons payload).
- Trainer aircrafts to be successful in the 9th and 13th cathegories.

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

I only miss from the list the Il-62, Il-86/80/96 and the An-124.

But then we can also look at the foreign aircrafts that have been most important for the Russian customers. Exposing the fleets of the most important Russian civil customers (airlines and air cargo companies), we see:

https://www.favt.ru/public/materials//e/b/8/9/5/eb89549831e6b870264709b135c089a7.pdf
https://www.favt.ru/public/materials//a/4/6/3/b/a463b5ebe5e2ef4c577c261652a38707.pdf

AEROFLOT (Russian stage): 1st Airliner, 2nd Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Aeroflot-Russian-Airlines + https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Aeroflot-Cargo + https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Aeroflot-Nord + https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Aeroflot-Don
Airbus A310: 14 always current+[recent]historic (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Airbus А319: 15 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A320: 93 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A321: 51 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Airbus A330: 22 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
Boeing:737: 88 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 13 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Boeing 777: 19 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
McDonnell Douglas DC-10/MD-11: 11 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
(An-124: 3)
(Il-86/80/96: 10)
(Su-Superjet: 59)
(Tu-134: 1 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory))
(Tu-204/214: 3)
(Yak-42/142: 1 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory))

AIRBRIDGECARGO: 1st Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/AirBridgeCargo
Boeing 737: 1 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 747: 29 (in the An-124 size cathegory)

ROSSIYA: 2nd Airliner, 5th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Rossiya-Russian-Airlines
Airbus А319: 31 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus А320: 14 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 737: 28 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 747: 9 (in the An-124 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 3 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Boeing 777: 10 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
(An-124: 2)
(Il-62: 1)
(Il-86/80/96: 4)
(Tu-154: 1 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory))
(Tu-204/214:5 )
An-148/158/178: 6 (in the An-72/71/74 size cathegory) All historic after sale)

S7AIRLINES: 3rd Airliner, 4th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/S7-Siberia-Airlines
Airbus A310: 9 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Airbus A319: 20 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A320: 25 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Airbus A321: 8 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 737: 35 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 2 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
(Tu-204/214: 2 )
Embraer ERJ-170: 17 (in the An-72/71/74 size cathegory)

VOLGA-DNEPR AIRLINES: 3rd Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Volga-Dnepr
(An-124: 14)
(Il-76: 6)

URAL AIRLINES: 4th Airliner, 9th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Ural-Airlines
Airbus A319: 7 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A320: 28 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Airbus A321: 16 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)

UTAIR: 5th Airliner, 6th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/UTair-Aviation
Airbus A321: 12 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 737: 56 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 757: 9 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 9 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
(Tu-134: 1 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory))
(Tu-154: 2 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory))
ATR 42/72 30 (in the An-24/26/30/32 size cathegory)
Bombardier CRJ-100 Series: 15 (in the An-24/26/30/32 size cathegory)

POBEDA: 6th Airliner 17th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Pobeda
Boeing:737: 21 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)

GLOBUS: 7th Airliner 10th Air-Cargo "Global Airline Guide 2017 (Part Two)". Airliner World (November 2017): 30.
Boeing:737: 21 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
(Tu-154: ? (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory))

ROYAL FLIGHT: 7th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Royal-Flight
Boeing:737: 2 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 757: 7 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 3 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)

AZUR AIR: 8th Airliner https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Azur-Air
Boeing:737: 6 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 757: 10 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 9 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Boeing 777: 1 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)

AVIASTAR-TU: 8th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Aviastar
Boeing 757: 1 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
(An-124: 1)
(Tu-204/214: 11 )

NORDWIND AIRLINES: 9th Airliner 27th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Nordwind-Airlines
Airbus A320: 1 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A321: 13 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Airbus A330: 4 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
Boeing:737: 15 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 757: 9 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 13 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Boeing 777: 9 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)

VIM-AVIA: 10th Airliner 12th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/VIM-Airlines
Airbus А319: 4 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A330: 2 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
Boeing:737: 3 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 757: 15 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 2 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Boeing 777: 14 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)


TOTAL: Top 10 Airliner + Top 10 Air-Cargo (2017: 83.36% Airliner + 90.99% Air-Cargo market share)
Boeing:737: 276 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Airbus A320: 161 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A321: 100 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Airbus А319: 77 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
(Su-Superjet: 59)
Boeing 767: 54 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Boeing 777: 53 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
Boeing 757: 51 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 747: 38 (in the An-124 size cathegory)
ATR 42/72 30 (in the An-24/26/30/32 size cathegory)
Airbus A330: 28 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
Airbus A310: 23 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
(Tu-204/214: 21)
(An-124: 20)
Embraer ERJ-170: 17 (in the An-72/71/74 size cathegory)
Bombardier CRJ-100 Series: 15 (in the An-24/26/30/32 size cathegory)
(Il-86/80/96: 14)
McDonnell Douglas DC-10/MD-11: 11 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
(Il-76: 6 (in the Il-62 size cathegory))
An-148/158/178: 6 (in the An-72/71/74 size cathegory) All historic after sale)
(Tu-154: 3 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory))
(Tu-134: 2 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory))
(Il-62: 1)
(Yak-42/142: 1 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory))

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

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

eehnie wrote:According to it, this would be the order of priority for auxiliary aircrafts and helicopters:

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

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

In the previous data about leading companies, as example, you will see the reason of why the Ministry of Industry is giving high priority to the MS-21/Yak-242. It is a project of high civil interest despite to be of lower military interest (the Russian Armed Forces order still the Tu-204/214 unlike the civil customers that moved to foreign models). It is right, and the Russian Armed Forces need to do nothing to get the aircraft available.

In overall terms, the reality emerges easily, and this is the real problem of your argument, GarryB. The real data do not agree with your comments. The crisis has been real for all, but some models of some cathegories resisted it better, and are exiting of the crisis stronger. The market is not like it was in 1990, and the recovery will not give as result a restoration of the situation of 1990. And this has been also a mistake in the words of Vladimir79, blaming of the weak demand of small aircrafts only to the crisis.

The data in support of the supposed demand of the Il-112 (8th Size Cathegory) is weak, because of its own demand and because of the demand in the cathegories around is still weaker. It is very difficult to make this aircraft a success.

And the case of the TVS 2DTS (10th Size Cathegory is weaker still. Do you want to know how many and which aircrafts reached 200 units produced completed in the Russian environment in the period 1994-2018 (both included)? In these 25 years, between the Russian aircrafts and helicopters only the Mi-8 family, that has also a combat component, reached 200. In the following years someone else will do, but is fairly difficult.

Instead of talking about the last village of Siberia in order to try to justify the development of marginal projects out of the interest of the main custormers, would be more interesting for the United Aircraft Corporation to be focused in the aircrafts used by most of the population, because these models also fit well the needs of air transport of the Russian Armed Forces in most of the cases.

Some limitation on post length should be introduced.

Polar Airlines one of the many regional airlines

Fleet
17 Antonov An-2
3 Antonov An-3T
3 Antonov An-24
6 Antonov An-26
1 L-410
26 Mil Mi-8
with an order placed for 200 TVS 2DTS aircraft

The Su-Superjet100, Yak-130, Mi-Ansat, Ka-226 and Il-103 surpassed this level of sales in this time of crisis.

Well there you go... the end of the cold war meant that the standard Russian jet trainer is a foreign aircraft in the form of the L-39.

The requirement to replace it led to the development of several aircraft, including one from MiG, one from Myacechev (spelling) and one from Yakovlev.

the Yak aircraft was successful and achieved quite a number of sales because the requirement to replace the L39s was quite urgent... foreign aircraft with foreign engines and a role that was critical for the Air Force.

Ansat and Ka-226 were also needed because the Mi-2 is foreign produced too and also urgently needed replacing.

The superjet was also clearly a weight class aircraft that was deemed needing a new aircraft to fill a gap left by aging soviet aircraft...

The An-2 fits rather well within this group, but until now a viable alternative has not been ready... now it is and it already has 200 orders.

The origin of this model of air transport is based in the costs and profitability, and the cost analysis in the auxiliary air transport is something that the Russian Armed Forces, share with civil companies. This is why analysis of priorities for the Russian Armed Forces, agree with this reality:

Bullshit.

You have listed a lot of western civil aircraft in service with Russian civilian airlines, where is the list of Russian military air groups using those same western aircraft?

It does not exist, because the Russian military uses only Soviet aircraft... and is in the process of Russianising those aircraft too... An-124s will get Russian engines and Russian avionics.... An-22s are leaving service, An-12s will be leaving service over the next decade or so to be replaced by the Il-276, the An-24/26 light transports are being replaced with a combination of Il-112 and Il-114.

An-2s will be replaced with Baikals.

In overall terms, the reality emerges easily, and this is the real problem of your argument, GarryB. The real data do not agree with your comments. The crisis has been real for all, but some models of some cathegories resisted it better, and are exiting of the crisis stronger. The market is not like it was in 1990, and the recovery will not give as result a restoration of the situation of 1990.

the life span of different aircraft is different... depending on use and design some aircraft can continue for decades like the An-2s, while others need lots more support and when that support requires communication with the Ukraine or the west then sometimes that plane needs to be replaced early.

The data in support of the supposed demand of the Il-112 (8th Size Cathegory) is weak, because of its own demand and because of the demand in the cathegories around is still weaker. It is very difficult to make this aircraft a success.

The An-24/6 was widely used and very popular and a wide variety of variants could be made including electronics aircraft...

Twin turboprop aircraft are widely used around the world for the short hop flights of less than 1,000km between air ports... if I book a flight to Christchurch or Wellington odds are I will be on an ATR-72 twin turboprop rather than a jet like a 737.

Instead of talking about the last village of Siberia in order to try to justify the development of marginal projects out of the interest of the main custormers, would be more interesting for the United Aircraft Corporation to be focused in the aircrafts used by most of the population, because these models also fit well the needs of air transport of the Russian Armed Forces in most of the cases.

Russia is not yet a country with high quality paved runways every 200km, so aircraft like the Baikal make sense in a lot of regions there and also in a lot of other places.

The An-2 is popular in the US even though they can't be used commercially... think about that... you can't make money transporting goods or people with them, or use them for sight seeing or anything... yet people buy them... that is AMAZING.

Personally I would love one myself with floats/skis instead of wheels and a nice Russian engine... I would fly up to central otago and land on a lake and do some fishing for a day... enough room inside to sleep 3-4 people... and then fly back when I have finished...

Polar Airlines one of the many regional airlines

In polar regions especially this aircraft will be ideal... and looking at their current fleet I would suspect Il-112s and Il-114s in their future order book too.

Polar Airlines is just one of many regional airlines in Russia now think about other ex soviet countries and other countries like Mongolia, Laos Cambodia Thailand Myanmar Sri Lanka, South American and African markets etc etc.

I was living in Jinka Ethiopia and homa bay kenya. Both have airports. Jinka was just opening when I was leaving (new airport old one was knackered) although jinka is a pretty big runway which is for larger cargo traffic the passenger need is smaller due to poverty but some are rich enough to fly and the medical services are dire in this area this is where the TVS 2DTS comes in handy. I've also flown into arba minch Ethiopia another small airfield which isn't well maintained. As for homa bay kenya it's been sporadic with flights due to cost of operating larger aircraft on the service. Yet again a cheaper to operate aircraft would make it more affordable for the people. TVS 2DTS yet again solves this problem.

The An-28 which is similar size and capacity as the TVS 2DTS have a reasonable good production run of 190+ units.

I remember when I was in the Khorog Gorno-Badakhshan Tajikistan I went to the small airport and I was hoping to catch a flight on the An-28 it's first come first served or whoever has the biggest amount of cash lol there was only 14 spaces I was told. We waited a short time then told it wasn't coming due to bad weather. The airport staff told me they knew it wasn't coming hence they had already been drinking this was at 9 am lol. They invited me and my friend for breakfast including bowels of vodka across the road in a small shop. They said that maybe the helicopter run by an international charity (the name escapes me) might have some spare seats only 7 seats in the helicopter and they were free but the charity decides who gets them. Two guys from the charity came to the shop and told us there was no seats available as some MP and medical staff had got them. We finished breakfast then continued back to dushanbe(2 days drive or 1 if you don't stop and drive like a ms chine lol) after being in the Pamirs for 5 days. The helicopter which I wasn't told the model but the airport staff stated it was equipped with all weather systems. The airport was small and short take off landings only. We were told that flights often get cancelled because the An-28 they had had no all weather systems. (Pics are available of my journey there if anyone wants to see them)

So anyway going back to the TVS 2DTS this aircraft would be a perfect replacement for the An-28 and having all weather systems would reduce the number of cancelled flights. So its not just Russian market but globally there's many remote areas that need such an aircraft.

As for the An-28 Production was transferred to PZL-Mielec in 1978. But was originally produced from 1975 but design started much earlier. From 1984-1993 PZL An-28 was in production from 1993 to present it became a more western version called PZL M28 skytruck. And both the PZL An-28 and M28 combined have seen 185+ being built.

Interestingly the USA special operations command ordered some in 2009. And even the German armed forces have leased some for parachute training. The following statements from two articles on the German armed forces use.

" The M28 is renowned for its Short Take Off and Landing capabilities and is a westernised version of the Soviet era Antonov An-28 transport aircraft.

The 7,500 kg (16,500 lb.) twin turboprop is ideal for military and commercial transport missions with its ability to operate from short, unpaved or underdeveloped airstrips.

German Bundeswehr carry out para jumping operation from an altitude of 6,200 meters, with 5 to 6 para troopers, even though the aircraft can carry 14.

The aircraft is flown by civilian pilots and is lot cheap to operate compared to the heavier A400M and the C-160 Transal. Other advantage include the rear exit door that is safe than side exit present in civilian aircraft."

http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2017/08/germany-lease-polish-m28-twin-prop-for.html?m=1

Parachute training within the German armed forces has so far been performed with the C-160 Transall. The A400M, which is replacing the C-160, is too large for some parachute exercises.

PZL Mielec hopes that the current lease will lead to a permanent a larger order from the Luftwaffe.

The deal will provide further ammunition to critics of the A400M, the Luftwaffe requirement for which has already been reduced from an original total of 75 aircraft to 60, and then further cut to 53 aircraft. Initial deliveries to the Luftwaffe were late, owing to delays with the programme. In late January 2011 it was revealed that the German parliament was discussing the possibility of selling on 13 of its allocated aircraft immediately after delivery.

Since the A400M is considered unsuitable for certain tactical airlift scenarios, the German government announced the planned acquisition of six C-130Js in April 2017. They will be operated by a joint Franco-German unit."

https://airforcesmonthly.keypublishing.com/2017/08/07/germany-leases-m28-skytrucks/


And then it gets more interesting sikorsky (HELICOPTER producer bought out the polish company)


" Sikorsky bought the Polish aerospace structures company, PZL Mielec, in 2007 the main focus was to produce helicopter structures and the S70i International Black Hawk helicopter. Included with the purchase was an odd fit for a helicopter manufacturer: PZL’s fixed-wing M28, a rugged twin-engine turboprop. Sikorsky’s new owner, Lockheed Martin, has only now begun to market it in earnest in the regions where it may sell the best.

PZL began producing the latest generation of the M28 in Mielec, Poland, in 1993, and since then the Sikorsky purchase has been delivering about 10 aircraft per year.Customers include the governments of Indonesia, Jordan, Poland, Venezuela, Vietnam, the U.S. and several commercial operators.

Schierholz tackled the information vacuum by getting company approval for an M28 Latin American tour. One-and-a-half years in the making, the tour launched in March and finished in May after visiting seven Caribbean and Latin American countries, including Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico.

“On a scale from 1-10, I expected interest in this region to be a 10,” says Schierholz. “It was a 15. He says there has been at least one request for proposal submitted from potential military, government or civilian customers in each country visited, some for multiple aircraft. The split between commercial and military applications is 50/50, he says. The split between commercial and military applications is 50/50, he says. The two “most-likely” procurements—Schierholz would not say which countries are involved—have been pushed back into 2018 for “budgetary reasons,” he says.

Cost of the aircraft is $6.5-7 million, depending on the configuration."

http://m28aircraft.com/news/news/view/m28-in-aviation-week

The PZL M28 Skytruck and PZL M28B Bryan is still manufactured.

So even sikorsky/Lockheed see the market potential as well for a small short take off and landings aircraft to be used in remote areas. Not just Rostec then. Where the TVS 2DTS has an advantage here is price ear marked at $1.5mn to eventually come down to $1.2mn take this into account of the M28 Skytruck at $6.5-7mn. For similar aircraft/similar roles.

As for the Germans using it as parachute training and as stated using 6-7 troops for one aircraft and that bigger aircraft are not always suitable backs up what me, GarryB and a few others have said and experienced that quite often smaller aircraft being used. As I mentioned the Britten-Norman being used in the UK for training purposes. This refutes eehnie claims as do other comments made in this post not my words but words of experts and businessmen.

Apologies for the long post.

GarryB, there is nothing to save from your comment.

The fleet of auxiliary aircrafts of the Russian Armed Forces, with numbers updated at the begin of 2018, is exposed in my first comment of this page. Is following the same trends that the civil fleet, but delayed. As example, in the first half of 2018 more than 25 An-26 have been scrapped without replacement by Il-112.

The exposition of the modern aircraft fleets of the modern Russian Airlines and Russian Air-Cargo companies had the purpose of showing which have been the aircrafts and size cathegories of their interest in the last years.

The data exposed in my previous comment now reachs for 2017: 83.36% Airliner + 90.99% Air-Cargo market share

It allows to see clearly the difference between the demand of margina projects and the main demand of the civil customers of the Russian aircraft manufacturer industry in the refered to Airliner and Transport aircrafts. Of course Russia will care about the main demand developping the right projects first.

The reasons leading the civil companies to have these fleets (exposed in my previous comment), have been reasons of costs and profitability, specially in the refered to the selection of the most successful size cathegories.

GarryB and others will have hard time:
- defending that the gouvernment of Russia can forget to attend the main demand, distracted with marginal projects.
- defending that civil companies and the Russian Armed Forces share not the analysis of costs. It is the reality.
- defending that is not possible for the Russian Armed Forces to pack loads in order to achieve bigger cost effiency with the use of bigger aircrafts like the Russian civil aviation has been doing since years, even decades.
- defending that is not possible to combine effectively and efficiently the use of big auxiliary aircrafts with the use of helicopters to reach every mm of the Russian territory.
- defending that helicopters can not be used to attend the demand of smaller aircrafts of the civil and military air transport.

To note that the main aircraft of the Polar Airlines is the Mi-8 helicopter, and they reached in 2017: 0.10% Airliner + 0.16% Air-Cargo market share.

Eehnie your statement " in the first half of 2018 more than 25 An-26 have been scrapped without replacement by Il-112"

The simple reason as to why it hasn't been replaced by IL-112 is quite simple is because it isn't production yet. We also don't know the reasons for scrapping the aircraft made they were accident damaged. Or old and no longer economical to repair or old and surplus to requirements and scrapped for parts. But fact remains Russia is waiting to replace them with IL-112 when it's ready.


Secondly your statement " defending that helicopters can not be used to attend the demand of smaller aircrafts of the civil and military air transport. "

For example mi-8/mi-17 don't have the range of TVS 2DTS nor can they match on price nor running costs and flight endurance (TVS 2DTS 15+hours of constant flying without extra fuel)

And your other statement
" To note that the main aircraft of the Polar Airlines is the Mi-8 helicopter, and they reached in 2017: 0.10% Airliner + 0.16% Air-Cargo market share."

I am glad that you mentioned this. Depending sources they have
24-26 mi-8 helicopters
16-17 An-2
3 An-24
6 An-26
1-3 An-3
1 L-410

So if you look at similar size aircraft they have let's say that they have
26 mi-8 helicopters
Vs
17 An-2
3 An-3
1 L-410

That's only a margin of 5 extra helicopters not a massive difference.

But he's the key point I am trying to make. Polar Airlines have decided to purchase 200 TVS 2DTS aircraft. That's a clear indication of what they see is more useful to them and it wasn't helicopters. In fact with the number they plan to buy it's most likely that they will get rid of their current fleet and only operate one type of aircraft the TVS 2DTS which makes sense in terms of maintenance, costs, and capability. This should allow them to cover more routes and more flights per day covering morning afternoon and night time slots offering a better offer to there customers and aircrafts will likely be full. It's much better doing this than flying a half empty An-24/26 or constantly being fully booked but not having the capacity to use additional aircraft to make extra money and provide a better availability to their customers. TVS 2DTS is much more fuel efficient than the An-2 and any similar helicopter

I was on an aerosvit An-24 some many years ago flying from Crimea to Kiev and they only flew once a day. It was fully booked customers complained that they could never get a seat. And actually my friends there said many customers refused to use the service due them using old aircraft and poor maintenance.

Anyway it's very clear that cessna and various other aircraft makers, as well as sikorsky/Lockheed, Rostec and polar Airlines have seen the potential of this type of aircraft and I think that they know the needs of their customers and know the market much much better than anyone else on this forum. And I am sure that there aware of helicopters vs aircraft capabilities and have made there choice based on that also
The number of this type of aircraft around the world in service and will continue to be in service for a very long time is big and there's a market there hence aircraft companies still produce and design and develop this type of aircraft.
Russia/soviet union is well known for producing aircraft for small remote areas with short take off and landings in a rugged environment so why shouldn't Russian companies get there share of this market?

To note an aircraft is much more comfortable to flying in than an aircraft and paying customers want safety and comfort when flying. And using the TVS 2DTS will allow companies to lower their cost to operate and offer cheaper flights to customers compared to the cost of a helicopter.

The fleet of auxiliary aircrafts of the Russian Armed Forces, with numbers updated at the begin of 2018, is exposed in my first comment of this page. Is following the same trends that the civil fleet, but delayed. As example, in the first half of 2018 more than 25 An-26 have been scrapped without replacement by Il-112.

Because the Il-112 is not ready for production yet... they were digitising the design...

The exposition of the modern aircraft fleets of the modern Russian Airlines and Russian Air-Cargo companies had the purpose of showing which have been the aircrafts and size cathegories of their interest in the last years.

The Russian Armed forces are in the process of introducing four full vehicle families with the intention of increasing mobility... that is on the ground and in the air...

These ground forces will be very sophisticated and capable, but in terms of mobility they will be rather more demanding in terms of air transport... current model BMP-3s weigh less than 20 tons so (actually 18 tons) so an An-12 could carry one, but the new wheeled and tracked medium weight vehicles are in the 25 ton range... so the An-12 wont be able to carry one.

Having Il-276s that could perhaps carry a 20-30 ton payload would be very useful especially when it will have the internal dimensions of an Il-76 but shorter.

Larger aircraft will also become rather more important, but again the issue is that the An-124 uses Ukrainian engines which means they don't really want any more An-124s as such... if they can get a PD engine in the correct thrust range to replace the Ukrainian engines in the An-124 then it makes sense to even make a few more An-124s and replace the existing Ukrainian engines... or I should say Soviet engines.

The point is that they wont replace the An-24/6 aircraft until the replacement aircraft is ready for production... and that will be the Il-114 and Il-112... the An-12 will also be replaced by a shortened Il-476 called Il-276.

It would make sense when a new Russian engine for the An-124 is developed, that they look at expanding their fleet with a longer term replacement for the An-22, An-124, and something like an An-225 for their space industry which has stated it is interested in new space shuttle designs.

It allows to see clearly the difference between the demand of margina projects and the main demand of the civil customers of the Russian aircraft manufacturer industry in the refered to Airliner and Transport aircrafts. Of course Russia will care about the main demand developping the right projects first.

The customer pays. The Russian military does not give a shit about what Russian airlines might find useful or might not... that is for the Russian Airline and the Russian aircraft makers to worry about.

This is a thread for the Russian Air Force... if they want a plane to do X, Y distance from base for Z hours and then fly back with AB payload, then that is what they will order and pay for and it is the job of the Russian aircraft makers to come up with a product that will do all that.

The Russian Aircraft makers can also fiddle with the design and adapt it to civilian operators needs too, but that is up to them and not really relevant in this thread.

The reasons leading the civil companies to have these fleets (exposed in my previous comment), have been reasons of costs and profitability, specially in the refered to the selection of the most successful size cathegories.

Up until quite recently there were no viable Russian entries in the game... now they have the Superjet and the MS-21 and over time other options are becoming available and will be ordered... in fact even if they are slightly less efficient than Airbus or Boeing options... they are American sanction proof which is rather more valuable than saving a few dollars on fuel per thousand kms.

- defending that is not possible for the Russian Armed Forces to pack loads in order to achieve bigger cost effiency with the use of bigger aircrafts like the Russian civil aviation has been doing since years, even decades.

They have always been able to do that, but the fact that they had An24 and even An2 aircraft in service suggests that sometimes it is not useful to leaving things and send them all at once in a larger aircraft.

Would you accept not getting post from your family once every 2 months so they fill a large plane with the post instead of more frequent deliveries in a smaller aircraft?

- defending that is not possible to combine effectively and efficiently the use of big auxiliary aircrafts with the use of helicopters to reach every mm of the Russian territory.

An An-2 is better than an Mi-8 for many tasks.

- defending that helicopters can not be used to attend the demand of smaller aircrafts of the civil and military air transport.

Helicopters cannot replace light transport planes.

Your comment agrees not with the reality GarryB.

At this point only 1 An-24 remains in cative service in the Naval Aviation:

https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-24

At same time, the Il-114 has been for sale since 1992, the last 26 years:

https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-114

In all this time no-one Il-114 entered in the Russian Armed Forces. Neither to replace the An-24 retired nor to replace other aircraft.

The transport aircrafts well adapted to the new armament and auxiliary equipment of the Russian Federation are just the aircrafts of the 2nd to the 6th size cathegories (approximately between 20 tons and 200 tons of payload). Smaller aircrafts can not transport a modern BMD or Typhoon 4x4.

Eehnie your point on the IL-114 fails to mention any of the comments below this might give a clear indication as to why none have entered service yet.


The IL-114 was produced from early 90's this wasn't a great time for Russia or any other ex soviet state and the western world was still slowing cooling down of cold war rhetoric. So buying this aircraft at launch would have small to nil. Also the IL-114 was plagued with various problems from the start til very recent. From problems with development, designs, engines, production,  financial problems, collapse of soviet union and numerous changes in onwership and building location so it's not surprising that orders have been poor. Also it's believed some parts had Been sourced in Ukraine so that was another issue from 2014.

Also other key point the IL 114 only received airworthiness certification on 26 April 1997. So this is also a major stumbling block.

Also it likely An-24 & An-26 were still in reasonable condition and with collapse of soviet union no money to replace them.  

In December 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that production of the aircraft will be at the Nizhny Novgorod plant Sokol, starting in 2019-2020. Until 2025, almost 56 billion rubles from the state budget will finance the construction of 100 Il-114 planes. Although it's now been moved to MiG production center in Lukhovitsy


2017. Russian airlines will need around 60-80 turboprops with 50-60 seats over the next 10 to 15 years, said Yury Slusar UAC president.

In 2017 the Kremlin injected ₽$153mn into the Il-114-300 and for three years from 2018 UAC plans to invest $122mn for the Il-114-300.

It also seems that there looking into different variants as well. The IL-112 will replace An-24/26 in Russian Armed Forces and it seems that possibly thst the IL-114 will for civil use and possibly some specialist variants for the navy and artic regions. So this doesn't seem to be dead yet although it's had plenty of downs and very much ups hence not many been made but that wasn't down to demand. And things look like it's on the up.

Sources.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2018-07-09/kremlin-boosts-effort-toward-indigenization-ssj100

https://sputniknews.com/military/201612151048591227-aircraft-air-plane-manufacturing/

http://atwonline.com/paris-air-show-2017/uac-make-decision-130-seat-ssj100-2017

https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/ilyushin-il-114/

Your comment agrees not with the reality GarryB.

At this point only 1 An-24 remains in cative service in the Naval Aviation:

Why would they still have even one if it was of no use?

There has been no Russian alternative up until now so of course they wont have replaced them yet... but the Il-112 and Il-114 are on their way in updated digitalised form.

In all this time no-one Il-114 entered in the Russian Armed Forces. Neither to replace the An-24 retired nor to replace other aircraft.

They are looking forward to getting the Il-114 into service because it is all Russian...

http://tass.com/defense/1018969

Previously it was not all Russian and there were issues with the engine too from memory... but the Il-112 and Il-114 they are talking about are fully digitised for modern production methods, the components and engines are all Russian, and they are ready to start producing them now... so they will start to enter production and fill all the gaps left by Soviet aircraft and to allow in service Soviet aircraft to be retired.

Smaller aircrafts can not transport a modern BMD or Typhoon 4x4.

Sometimes they don't transport any vehicles... 4-6 tons is a lot of food or ammo or it could be a range of other loads that need to be shifted from one place to another... the 1990s proved a problem for Russia because they really didn't have a small light helo in the Mi-2 category that was made in Russia so they had to use Mi-8s for light work which is just really inefficient.

Now they have several light helos and more on the way... and it is the same with fixed wing aircraft.

The Russian armed forces received not a single Russian/Sovietic aircraft out of the scheme that I explained in the previous page, since the fall of the Soviet Union, since the end of 1991.

The next will be the first. If it happens.

All the Russian/Sovietic aircrafts delivered to the Russian Armed Forces in its modern history, since the end of 1991 (Il-76, Tu-204/214, Il-86/80/96, Tu-154, Mi-8 family, Ka-27 family, Mi-Ansat, Ka-226, Yak-130...), are inside the scheme of successfull cathegories that I explained in the previous page.

This is the reality. Not other.

I revert back to what I said in my previous posts to refute this claim. But I doubt anything has registered in the selected reading you do. All the sources and comments made and u still ignore the reasons given. Am very very bored of this

All the Russian/Sovietic aircrafts delivered to the Russian Armed Forces in its modern history, since the end of 1991 (Il-76, Tu-204/214, Il-86/80/96, Tu-154, Mi-8 family, Ka-27 family, Mi-Ansat, Ka-226, Yak-130...), are inside the scheme of successfull cathegories that I explained in the previous page.

They also bought other aircraft... the An-148 for instance and negotiated a contract with the Ukraine and Iran to manufacture them... which obviously fell through when the Ukraine went all mental.

They are also now going to put into production the Russianised An-2, plus the Il-112 and Il-114, which don't fit in your categories of success.

GarryB wrote:

All the Russian/Sovietic aircrafts delivered to the Russian Armed Forces in its modern history, since the end of 1991 (Il-76, Tu-204/214, Il-86/80/96, Tu-154, Mi-8 family, Ka-27 family, Mi-Ansat, Ka-226, Yak-130...), are inside the scheme of successfull cathegories that I explained in the previous page.

They also bought other aircraft... the An-148 for instance and negotiated a contract with the Ukraine and Iran to manufacture them... which obviously fell through when the Ukraine went all mental.

They are also now going to put into production the Russianised An-2, plus the Il-112 and Il-114, which don't fit in your categories of success.

Also to note that the aircraft eehnie mentioned were very much likely needed for replacement or demand than there was for other aircraft at the time also fails to mention from 1991 to around 2010 especially 1991-1998 Russia was recovering from the break up of the Soviet union and financial woes as well as facing conflicts in Chechnya which likely impacts on money available for replacement. It's very likely that there An-24/26 were still in reasonable condition I flew on An-24 in 2009 and still going strong. It's highly likely that purchases of other aircraft was more important. Like the L-39 was flown heavily and obviously needed replacing. And replacement is not something that just pops up in someones head it's been planned for years ahead. The Russians ain't stupid and prioritise what needs replacing first due need and condition of current aircraft it's replacing. Also jet aircraft and helicopters tend to be replaced quicker than turboprop aircraft this could be down to role, hours flown, maintenance cost, reliability, shell life, can't be certain exact reason for each aircraft. But I've seen many older turboprop aircraft in the sky than old jet aircraft and helicopters. If you notice that militaries are more likely to have older turboprop aircraft in service than older jet aircraft and helicopters must be a reason. But turboprop seem to serve a long life than others. This could be one of the factors it's not as if Russia don't use An-2, An-24/26 L-410 they do but due to long life of the aircraft has likely hasn't been in a rush to replace them in til recently.

They haven't produced Tu-95 since around the fall of soviet union either but aircraft is still being used and is still useful and yet despite how long it's been in service only in til the last few years have we been made aware of a replacement and that won't be for sometime. So basing on your reasoning because something hasn't been replaced or bought in the last couple of decades it's effectively useless?

It is false to say that it has not been Russian alternative. I included the Russian alternatives before (marked in blue):

eehnie wrote:All the successors of the An-72/71/74 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Mi-46/AHL size cathegory). The production of the An-148/158/178 is being stopped in Russia by lack of orders:

7th cathegory Airliner aircraft: An-148/158/178 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-148
7th cathegory Transport aircraft: Be-200 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Beriev/Be-200
7th cathegory Transport aircraft: Yak-44 https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1170
7th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Tu-414 https://web.archive.org/web/20070208060848/http://www.tupolev.ru:80/English/Show.asp?SectionID=124

All the successors of the An-24/26/30/32 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Mi-38 size cathegory):

8th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Tu-324 https://web.archive.org/web/20070208060848/http://www.tupolev.ru:80/English/Show.asp?SectionID=124
8th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Il-114 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-114
8th cathegory Airliner aircraft: An-140 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-140
8th cathegory Transport aircraft: Il-112 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-112
8th cathegory Transport aircraft: Tu-130/136 https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/tu-136.htm
8th cathegory Transport aircraft: MiG-110 http://avia.pro/blog/mig-110

While the Yak-130 trainer surpassed this level of production successfully, the last successful transport/airliner aircraft in the size cathegory of the Mi-8 and Ka-27 families is earlier still. All the recent projects have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed:

9th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Yak-48 http://avia.pro/blog/yak-48
9th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Il-108 https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1990/1990%20-%201314.html
9th cathegory Transport aircraft: Su-80 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Sukhoi/Su-80
9th cathegory Transport aircraft: Be-112 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/be112.html

All the successors of the Che-22 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Ka-60/62 size cathegory), and a good number of units of the L-410 remain in stock without finding a customer that purchase them:

10th cathegory Trainer aircraft: MiG-AT http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/migat.html
10th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-302 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/m302.html
10th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-202 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/m202.html
10th cathegory Transport aircraft: TVS 2DTS https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/sibnia/tvs-2dts/
10th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-208 Eagle http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t208.html

All the successors of the An-2/4/6 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Mi-Ansat size cathegory):

11th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-101/130/210 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/craft/t101.html http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t130.html http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t210.html
11th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-207 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t207.html
11th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-102 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/m102.html
11th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Rysachok http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Technoavia/Rysachyok
11th cathegory Airliner aircraft: MiG-125 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/mig125.html
11th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-115 Niva http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t115.html
11th cathegory Airliner aircraft: T-440 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t440.html

The last successful aircraft in the size cathegory of the Ka-226 is also earlier. All the recent projects have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed:

12th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-517 Fermer http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t517.html
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: GM-17 Viper http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/gm17.html
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-101 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Myasishchev/M-101
12th cathegory Trainer aircraft: SR-10 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/other/sr10.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: SM92 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/craft/sm92.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: M-500 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/m500.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-507 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t507.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-511 Aist-M http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t511.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: LA-8 http://avia.pro/blog/la-8-aerovolga-tehnicheskie-harakteristiki-foto
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: SA-20P http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/sa20p.html
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Be-103 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Beriev/Be-103
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Akkord-201 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/akkord201.html

Checking case per case the market reality that these models suffered and are suffering, my words are perfectly understandable.
To note that the far bigger and far more expensive An-124 surpassed 50 units produced completed.

No-one of the aircrafts in blue reached the Russian Armed Forces since the end of 1991. Not a single unit of Russian airliner or transport aircrafts of these size cathegories has been delivered to the Russian Armed Forces after the fall of the Soviet Union. To be all Russian only has been a requirement since 2014. It explains not the lack of orders of the Russian aircrafts with some foreign component between the end of 1991 and 2014, including the lack of orders of the Il-114 between 1992 and 2014.

It has been instead, 3 orders (very low compared to the number of orders of Russian aircrafts in the successfull cathegories) of foreign aricrafts of these cathegories (An-148/158/178, An-140 and L-410), over the Russian alternatives. They have been considered small contracts for political purposes signed after the war of Georgia of 2008, that have not been completed at this point. The problem for Russia with the freezing of these contracts after the war of Donbass in 2014 is exactly 0. The production of the An-148/158/178 started in Russia, but is being stopped now, at the end of the contract of the Russian Armed Forces, by lack of new civil or military orders.

Massive problems with your data. For one the TVS 2DTS is replacing the An-2 and yet your data says otherwise. Also there's a very good reason why TVS 2DTS hasn't reached 50 units yet and that's because production hasn't started yet but am order has been placed for 200.

As for the other aircraft in blue which I glanced over have they ever been in production? And for instance a be-103 is a very small niche market and is nothing like what u compare it to it has a completely different role and not to mention 3 ended in usa of all countries and China looking to order 17-20 aircraft which isn't bad considering the niche market. If it never made it into production then you can use that as a gauge of sales there could many reasons as I said for it not coming into production If not could be multiple reasons. Yet again my previous posts refutes your claims again and again.

Also everybody knows that the an-148 etc were no longer produced was NOT due to lack of orders but production rights AND you fail to even realise that IL -112 is now being designed they would not be designing such plane if there wasn't a need.

d_taddei2 wrote:Massive problems with your data. For one the TVS 2DTS is replacing the An-2 and yet your data says otherwise. Also there's a very good reason why TVS 2DTS hasn't reached 50 units yet and that's because production hasn't started yet but am order has been placed for 200.

As for the other aircraft in blue which I glanced over have they ever been in production? If not could be multiple reasons. Yet again my previous posts refutes your claims again and again

The list is a list of alternatives. Is not the TVS 2DTS an alternative? Yes. Right.
No-one of the aircrafts of the list reached 50 units produced completed. Reached the TVS 2DTS 50 units produced completed? No. Right.
The aircrafts marked in blue reached not the Russian Armed Forces. Reached the TVS 2DTS the Russian Armed Forces? No. Right.
The aircrafts marked in pink are foreing aircrafts that reached the Russian Armed Forces by contracts of political nature.

In my opinion, based on technical issues, no-one of these projects have a good prospect to reach 50 units produced completed.
In my opinion, based on technical issues, the aircrafts marked in blue have not a good prospect to reach effectively the Russian Armed Forces, and the aircrafts marked in pink have a good prospect to leave the Russian Armed Foces in the mid-term.

Some of the projects of the list reached production stage and are for sale with weak performance, like the Il-114. Others stopped production after weak performance in the market. Others reached not production stage by lack of interest of potential customers. Many of these projects were presented with overoptimistic plans of production, that are not becoming real.

All is right in the list.

The alone problem is that there are two factories (in Taganrog and Yekaterinburg) that require stronger options to produce, and they will have. That is all.

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Massive problems with your data. For one the TVS 2DTS is replacing the An-2 and yet your data says otherwise. Also there's a very good reason why TVS 2DTS hasn't reached 50 units yet and that's because production hasn't started yet but am order has been placed for 200.

As for the other aircraft in blue which I glanced over have they ever been in production? If not could be multiple reasons. Yet again my previous posts refutes your claims again and again

The list is a list of alternatives. Is not the TVS 2DTS an alternative? Yes. Right.
No-one of the aircrafts of the list reached 50 units produced completed. Reached the TVS 2DTS 50 units produced completed? No. Right.
The aircrafts marked in blue reached not the Russian Armed Forces. Reached the TVS 2DTS the Russian Armed Forces? No. Right.
The aircrafts marked in pink are foreing aircrafts that reached the Russian Armed Forces by contracts of political nature.

In my opinion, based on technical issues, no-one of these projects have a good prospect to reach 50 units produced completed.
In my opinion, based on technical issues, the aircrafts marked in blue have not a good prospect to reach effectively the Russian Armed Forces, and the aircrafts marked in pink have a good prospect to leave the Russian Armed Foces in the mid-term.

Some of the projects of the list reached production stage and are for sale with weak performance, like the Il-114. Others stopped production after weak performance in the market. Others reached not production stage by lack of interest of potential customers. Many of these projects were presented with overoptimistic plans of production, that are not becoming real.

All is right in the list.

The alone problem is that there are two factories (in Taganrog and Yekaterinburg) that require stronger options to produce, and they will have. That is all.

A big fat
NO
NO
NO
You placed the TVS 2DTS into a category to which it wasn't replacing any of the aircraft you mentioned in that category it's replacing the An-2 yet absent from your category for replacement aircraft for an-2.


You state that Russia has not purchased anything that you written in blue nor has anything reached 50+ sales the TVS 2DTS being one of them tell how on earth can anyone buy anything that hasn't made it into production? And how can 50+ be had if production hadn't started yet it's pretty basic and common sense surely even you can see that. Quite simply you cant expect something to be in physical service if it hasn't been produced yet. And you still fail to recognise that polar Airlines have placed an order for 200. Has this escaped your mind? Or you dismissing polar Airlines and Rostecs words?

The reports talk about a Maximum Take-Off Weight of 7300 Kg for the TVS 2DTS. Everyone knows that this is significantly bigger than the MTOW of the An-2/4/6. This is how longer range and improvements in other features are achieved, but this has a consequence in the weight of the aircraft. This is nothing new because other aircrafts also listed, checked before this neighbor size cathegory, with the result that is being commented for all them. The TVS 2DTS is in the right place of the list.

It is false to say that it has not been Russian alternative. I included the Russian alternatives before (marked in blue):

Did you even read those pages before you posted links or did you just copy the section in wiki that shows similar aircraft types and just post the links?
It seems like you have a list of aircraft that does not distinguish between aircraft that have served for decades with distinction and prototypes than never entered service, so claiming there are plenty of options when in reality there actually was no chance of any of the aircraft making it to service makes your logic and conclusions wrong.

Just looking at the first one you posted:

7th cathegory Airliner aircraft: An-148/158/178 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-148
7th cathegory Transport aircraft: Be-200 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Beriev/Be-200
7th cathegory Transport aircraft: Yak-44 https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1170
7th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Tu-414 https://web.archive.org/web/20070208060848/http://www.tupolev.ru:80/English/Show.asp?SectionID=124

(BTW just for clarity there is no h in Category)

OK... so lets break it down... the An-148 is basically a development of an An-72 with the engines moved under the wings instead of on top of them.

Engines on top of the wing were good for STOL performance because the jet exhaust followed the trailing wing control surfaces and was angled down during landing giving boosted lift so lower operating speeds on landing and takeoffs.

The problem is that the engines are a pain in the ass to get to to service which is bad for civilian use, so they developed a range of aircraft that were very similar but had normal podded underwing aircraft... a cheap and simple solution.

In comparison the Be-200 is an amphibious plane... which is more expensive to operate than a conventional plane... you would not use an amphibious plane when you didn't need one because they cost more and are less efficient... their lower portions are optimised for being in water and not being in air...

The Yak-44 was a prototype for a naval AWACS aircraft and never became operational... they only actually made one and it was designed before the Il-112 and Il-114 so it would be even older than them...

In fact if you look up the Wiki page for the An-148 it shows the Sukhoi Superjet-100 and the Tu-334 as rivals, and it mentions when the Russian design bureaus were unified into UAC it was decided to go with the Superjet and the An-148 and the MS-21.

Obviously as this was in 2010 they didn't realise what a dead end the AN-148 would be...

Your second group:

8th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Tu-324 https://web.archive.org/web/20070208060848/http://www.tupolev.ru:80/English/Show.asp?SectionID=124
8th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Il-114 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-114
8th cathegory Airliner aircraft: An-140 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-140
8th cathegory Transport aircraft: Il-112 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-112
8th cathegory Transport aircraft: Tu-130/136 https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/tu-136.htm
8th cathegory Transport aircraft: MiG-110 http://avia.pro/blog/mig-110  

Well the fact that they have invested money on digitising the designs of the Il-112 and Il-114 and have also invested in new engines for both aircraft suggests that when they are ready they will put both in full production. The Tupolevs are not going forward... that was decided when UAC was formed, Antonov is not an option of course, and MiG simply does not exist and with production of Il-112 and Il-114 there is no reason to revive it.

All the successors of the An-2/4/6 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Mi-Ansat size cathegory):

Production orders for TVS 2DTS...

The last successful aircraft in the size cathegory of the Ka-226 is also earlier. All the recent projects have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed:

Now you are really reaching...

No-one of the aircrafts in blue reached the Russian Armed Forces since the end of 1991.

Most of them have never been used by the Russian Armed Forces before either... that last category you listed would only include light trainer aircraft like the Su-26, or current turboprop trainer aircraft... yet you don't mention any... would that break your agenda?

No-one of the aircrafts in blue reached the Russian Armed Forces since the end of 1991. Not a single unit of Russian airliner or transport aircrafts of these size cathegories has been delivered to the Russian Armed Forces after the fall of the Soviet Union. To be all Russian only has been a requirement since 2014. It explains not the lack of orders of the Russian aircrafts with some foreign component between the end of 1991 and 2014, including the lack of orders of the Il-114 between 1992 and 2014.

That can be explained by the obvious... when the cold war ended they had more planes than they actually needed... and very little money to buy brand new aircraft.

They didn't do a lot of exercises in the 1990s and were therefore not short of transports.

Now, things are changing... old planes need to be retired, and foreign planes with foreign components require US dollars to buy parts to maintain and operate, which makes them really expensive.

Now they have spent money on replacement aircraft and are getting ready to put them into production.

It has been instead, 3 orders (very low compared to the number of orders of Russian aircrafts in the successfull cathegories) of foreign aricrafts of these cathegories (An-148/158/178, An-140 and L-410), over the Russian alternatives.

Those aircraft are not longer available or desirable for Russian military service.

They have been considered small contracts for political purposes signed after the war of Georgia of 2008, that have not been completed at this point. The problem for Russia with the freezing of these contracts after the war of Donbass in 2014 is exactly 0. The production of the An-148/158/178 started in Russia, but is being stopped now, at the end of the contract of the Russian Armed Forces, by lack of new civil or military orders.

The purpose of cooperation with the Ukraine was for good relations... Ukraine does not want good relations, so continuing with the deal makes no sense at all.. which is why those deals are dead.

The Il-112, Il-114, and Russian modification of the An-2, however are perfectly fine all Russian MADE designs... the engine for the TVS is American but it is licence made in Russia...

All is right in the list.

The list mixes production aircraft with prototypes... it mixes trainers with transports with airliners... it is a stupid list.

The reports talk about a Maximum Take-Off Weight of 7300 Kg for the TVS 2DTS. Everyone knows that this is significantly bigger than the MTOW of the An-2/4/6. This is how longer range and improvements in other features are achieved, but this has a consequence in the weight of the aircraft. This is nothing new because other aircrafts also listed, checked before this neighbor size cathegory, with the result that is being commented for all them. The TVS 2DTS is in the right place of the list.

The original An-2 was designed during WWII and had a heavy but strong structure that was intended to be rugged and easily repairable in the field.

Of course if you replace this heavy structure with modern light but strong composites then you still get a strong aircraft but it is much lighter.

Now they could have tried to match the performance of the An-2 and had a much lower max weight, but they clearly wanted to also improve performance.

The F-16 has a external payload capacity of 7 tons, which is comparable to the overload bomb weight of a B-17 bomber... but what you are saying is that the F-16 should be counted in the bomber list because its weight performance puts it there... rather than using your brain and saying... this is just a modern Mustang... and the weight changes are to be expected... it will still be used mostly the same way.

BTW just over 7 tons is not that much heavier than the An-2 which in the later models could get up to 6 tons.

 It is you who are reading the links by the first time. Maybe you who are still in the wikipedia phase, and d_taddei not even there.

Neither realized still that the Su-26/29/31 is included in my refereces of the previous page, and is in the 13th size category, not in the 12th size category. The 13th size category are roughly aircrafts of 2125 Kg of MTOW or less, and obviously have very low payload if some. Basically trainer (successfull as reflected in the scheme), agricultural (successfull in the previous century but declining), aerobatic and rich person caprice aircrafts, plus helicopters. In this category the helicopters seem not successfull, and this is why this category is different to the 7th to 12th categories.

Here you have multiple examples of the 13th category that succeed not, but unlike in other categories the list is not complete:

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

13th category Airliner aircraft: Yak-58 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/craft/yak58.html
13th category Transport aircraft: Su-38 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/su38.html
13th category Helicopter: Ka-115 http://avia-pro.net/blog/vertolet-ka-115-foto-harakteristiki
13th category Transport aircraft: T-411 http://avia.pro/blog/hrunichev-t-411-aist-tehnicheskie-harakteristiki-foto
13th category Transport aircraft: Chaika L-4/42/44 http://avia.pro/blog/l-44-tehnicheskie-harakteristiki-foto
13th category Airliner aircraft: BT-4 http://avia.pro/blog/vt-4-tehnicheskie-harakteristiki-foto
13th category Transport aircraft: Yak-112 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/craft/yak112.html
(and a lot more of every type in the 13th category) http://www.airwar.ru/lanow.html http://www.airwar.ru/shanow.html http://avia-pro.net/vertolety

To note that the reference as airliner or transport aircraft is more structural than other thing, because these aircrafts have not payload to transport persons or materials.
To note that I checked a lot more that these options, finding the successful cases.