An-70 Program

Russia and Ukraine will continue to work on the AN-70 - General Staff

Russia and the new leadership of Ukraine have agreed that work on An-70 aircraft will continue to be confirmed on Monday the chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces, Army General Nikolai Makarov, during a press conference in RIA Novosti.

"We agreed that we should finish building the aircraft, conduct all necessary tests, and only then decide what to do next," - "Makarov said.

He noted that regardless of the political regime and political system between Ukraine and Russia, there existed a close industrial cooperation, which will be developed.

Antonov An-70 - medium-load (operational-tactical military transport) aircraft, which should replace the outdated and obsolete An-12. The first flight of the An-70 was held on Dec. 16, 1994 in Kiev.

AN-70 is designed to transport cargo weighing up to 47 tons, dropping paratroopers and equipment.

The main customers are the Ministry of Defense aircraft of Russia and Ukraine.



http://www.rian.ru/

It is a shame there was a gap in development created by the political change of direction of the Ukraine.
If this aircraft had continued in development I think a lot of countries looking at the A400 would look seriously at the An-70.

Even from a political point of view any country that wouldn't normally consider a Russian aircraft can simply bypass that issue by buying a Ukrainian manufactured one.

Having An-70s in Russian service should improve things and make their transport options better. With a 47 ton capacity each An-70 should be able to carry all of Russias current MBTs, which is something the An-12 couldn't (and of course was not designed to do). Wanting more mobile forces being able to transport your heavy armour in your standard medium to light transport must be good.

This is very good news indeed. The AN-70 is something which the Russian military needs badly and something which, I suppose, Antonov also needs to survive as a constructor. I am glad that the insanity of the "Orange" years is over and that both Russia and the Ukraine can get down to some mutually beneficial business.

Any ideas of the hoped-for development schedule or the number of aircraft Russia would be interested in?

I also wonder what all this means for the IL-76TF...

FG

The An-70 was always seen as a replacement for the An-12 so I don't think it will have a huge impact on Il-476 production.
It will mean that they will have a better selection of tools when a problem comes up.

Ukraine exchange "Antonov" on cheap gas

17.04.2010

Ukraine intends to transfer control of Russia Aircraft Concern "Antonov" to get a discount on gas in 2010. Newspaper Vedomosti wrote that 50 percent plus one share stake may be transferred to the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), and instead Antonov will receive a small share of the Russian corporation.

Today, 21 April, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev meet in Kharkov Ukrainian counterpart Yanukovych. The meeting is planned to sign agreements on gas, but their details were not disclosed. On Friday, April 16, Press Service of the Russian government reported that new arrangements on gas will be recorded on the basis of proposals of the Ukrainian president, but even the April 20 talks continued late into the evening.

According to "Vremya Novosti, Russia intended to grant Ukraine a one-time 20 percent discount on gas during 2010. This would reduce the price of Kiev from 330-340 to 260 dollars per thousand cubic meters and save Naftohaz more than 2 billion dollars. However, the Ukrainian side is seeking guarantees of lower gas prices in the long term. Instead, discounts on gas to Ukraine may offer Russia cooperation in the nuclear sphere, in particular, the construction of the third and fourth unit of the Khmelnytsky NPP. In addition, the RF can initiate erection in the Ukraine plant to produce nuclear fuel.

Newspaper "Time of news" writes that Prime Minister Mykola Azarov nightfall had to urgently fly to Moscow for a personal meeting with Russian Prime Minister Putin reach concrete agreements.

The current gas contract was signed between Gazprom and Naftogaz, with the participation of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Yulia Tymoshenko at the beginning of 2009. Under this agreement, the parties undertook to calculate the cost of gas on a formula linked to oil prices on the world market.

Antonov produces popular in the post-AN-148, as well as transport aircraft An-70 and AN-124 (Ruslan).

Lenta.ru

Russia has agreed to give Ukraine a discount on gas. For what?

Figured this was bound to happen one day.


Admin edit... post full article in an OP

sepheronx wrote:
Russia has agreed to give Ukraine a discount on gas. For what?

This is a VERY good deal for Russia actually.

First - it is in Russia's vital geostrategic interest to support the reconstruction of the Ukraine and to help the Ukraine slowly recover from years of crazy nationalist rule. That, in turn, means that Russia simply had to sells its gas at a discount price as energy is the most obvious way to help the Ukraine.

Second, Antonov is hugely important for Russia which needs the An-124, the future An-70 and, frankly, the entire technological basis of this company.

Third, as part of the recent deal, the Ukraine also agreed to extend presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea for another 25(!) years (source)

That is a very, very good deal for Russia

FG

if they realy will extend the black see flet for another 25 years then its great if not then its "the" bullshit deal of the year, 10nths billions of $ (40billion to be correct) of subsidized gas for a this aircraft cmpany which we don't need, surly not a bad combany but so "important" to russia like 5 bucks expensive icecube's in the antarctica

Russia already has a factory to build An-124s, it is the Antonov design bureau that is in the Ukraine, not all the Antonov factories.
The An-148 was a joint development with the Ukraine, Russia and Iran, with the aircraft being built in all three countries I think.

Having said that, it will be very good for the Ukrainian economy, which is good for stability, and delaying the question of the Crimea for some time is also good. Extending the lease for 25 years means that it will be 2042 before the Russian fleet has to move. That is rather better than 2017 which was the previous deadline.

This deal should be a good way of ensuring a market for Russian gas, whose low price in the Ukraine will encourage its use.

This should also be good for the An-70... if they can get it into production and service it might create a real rival for the A400M.

Antonova is a broke company, its stock price isn't worth to wipe my ass. Giving shares of UAC for junk bonds doesn't make sense to me. This is an attempt to takeover Ukraine's aviation industry but their factories are just as bad as our worst neglected companies. We order more AN-148 than we do our own SSJ. Why do we want to takeover a company that competes with our own industry? If there is one company in Ukraine we should take over it is Motor Sich, not Antonova. They make all the engines that run our Soviet era turbo props and helicopters. Take that over and make them design modern engines to Western standards and that would be very beneficial. I don't like attempts to take over FSU companies that compete against our own industry. It is just more burden to carry when we have our own companies to stay afloat, and these don't employ RF citizens. If you go after companies outside of Russia, get the ones that fill a void in our own complex, not one that competes.

Vladimir79 wrote:Antonova is a broke company, its stock price isn't worth to wipe my ass.

Please corrent me if I am wrong, but does the Antonov design bureau not hold the technology for the AN-70? As for the company itself, it is broke courtesy of the nationalist Ukies who basically brought it to a standstill and made it worthless. Is that not the ideal time to aquire a company, when it is cheap and has no solution but to sell? Lastly, is 51% of share not the minimal control package needed to make sure that either 1) the company does what you want or 2) the company does not do what you do not want it to do (such as compete where you don't want it to compete)?

I agree with what you are saying, you make a lot of sense here, but Motor Sich is not a basket case ready to be taken over. If you did take over Motor Sich, it would still be in the Ukraine with mostly Ukrainian workers. You could transfer the technology to a Russian engine maker and then make the changes you want, but it would not be good for relations.

What I think would be better for Russia would be to invest in a Russian engine maker, get some joint venture going with a Western engine maker and make new generation engines to power a new generation of Russian aircraft. It seems to me that all the current drives are to remove Soviet era equipment from Russian service and that would include Turbo prop aircraft and helos. A new generation of engines would certainly help such a goal and in the mean time they could offer attractive upgrade options to existing users of Soviet era kit.

With regard to Antonov being a competitor, well now that you have control you can make sure it isn't.
With control you can make sure that the An-70, An-148 and An-124 are all properly funded and everything else that might be a competitor to Ilyusion (spelling) and Tupolev can be given less focus... shall we say.
Russia is already in a position to make its own An-148s and An-124s so what it really does is creates a situation where the An-70 can be completed so it can go into production to replace the An-12 which is well in need of replacement by now.

This is good for Russia and it is good for the Ukraine.

I agree with what you are saying, you make a lot of sense here, but Motor Sich is not a basket case ready to be taken over. If you did take over Motor Sich, it would still be in the Ukraine with mostly Ukrainian workers. You could transfer the technology to a Russian engine maker and then make the changes you want, but it would not be good for relations.

Taking over Antonova is more newsworthy for relations than Motor Sich. AN is the hallmark of Ukrainian Industry. Motor Sich is just their left over Soviet engine plant.

What I think would be better for Russia would be to invest in a Russian engine maker, get some joint venture going with a Western engine maker and make new generation engines to power a new generation of Russian aircraft. It seems to me that all the current drives are to remove Soviet era equipment from Russian service and that would include Turbo prop aircraft and helos. A new generation of engines would certainly help such a goal and in the mean time they could offer attractive upgrade options to existing users of Soviet era kit.

We are already doing that with Turbomeca of France for helicopter engines, and Snecma for airliner engines.

With regard to Antonov being a competitor, well now that you have control you can make sure it isn't.
With control you can make sure that the An-70, An-148 and An-124 are all properly funded and everything else that might be a competitor to Ilyusion (spelling) and Tupolev can be given less focus... shall we say.
Russia is already in a position to make its own An-148s and An-124s so what it really does is creates a situation where the An-70 can be completed so it can go into production to replace the An-12 which is well in need of replacement by now.

This is good for Russia and it is good for the Ukraine.

If you fund AN-148 you kill Sukhoi Super Jet, if you fund An-70 you kill Il-(4)76, these are the two biggest programmes we have going today. We own the patent to An-124 and the new production line is going in Russia, not Ukraine. We don't need Antonova aircraft if we develop our own and we don't need to own both. It is a thing in business called redundant capacity that is an inefficient use of capital allocation. What we need to do is exactly as has been planned. Bring the Soviet capacities of the FSU back into Russia proper and build them better than before.

If you fund AN-148 you kill Sukhoi Super Jet, if you fund An-70 you kill Il-(4)76, these are the two biggest programmes we have going today.

Using the Il-476 to replace the An-12s in Russian service would be like replacing Mi-2s with Mi-17s.
The Il-476 and An-70 are not really in the same class.
Also An-148 was a joint Ukrainian/Russian/Iranian aircraft anyway... it would be going ahead no matter what the state of ownership of Antonov was.
It is pretty much in the An-72 class of aircraft and is already in production in Russia.

Il-476 was already slated instead of An-70 when we cut funding for it. It carries the same, has better performance and costs less. They are in the same class, just one has turbo-props while the other has turbo-fans.

Has anyone ever heard the term "if it isn't broken, don't fix it"?

The Russian engines that are made now, yes, are mostly made during Soviet Era (with some few exceptions), but are usually (and especially in the helicopter sector, more regarded. So why fix what isn't broken? Why go with something else when the previous is proven technology? Yes, you can upgrade, but does not mean you need to simply remove the product because of an old "concept" in terms of political viewpoint.

Soviet helicopter engines more regarded... than what, a gunpowder engine? The reason we turn West for helicopter engines is because theirs have better performance per weight, more fuel efficient, easier to maintain, more reliable, and far safer. We are limited to the helos we can sell because they only meet 3rd world certifications, which is none. The only helicopters we sell to the developed world have certified engines we don't make.

Vladimir79 wrote:Soviet helicopter engines more regarded... than what, a gunpowder engine? The reason we turn West for helicopter engines is because theirs have better performance per weight, more fuel efficient, easier to maintain, more reliable, and far safer. We are limited to the helos we can sell because they only meet 3rd world certifications, which is none. The only helicopters we sell to the developed world have certified engines we don't make.

Well, if that is the case............. Although, it still seems like their productions are very much popular around the world.

Vladimir79 wrote:better performance per weight, more fuel efficient, easier to maintain, more reliable, and far safer

oh yeah? you remember how the Apaches performed in Desert Storm (terribly - could not handle the sand). How about during Kosovo war (terribly - could not handle the humidity). I won't even go into the Desert One disaster (years ago I worked for a couple of months with a guy who had been the senior Delta officer on that trip and he was beyond disgusted with how the US helos - and crews - had performed). I personally knew Apache pilots who told me how they had to use, I am not kidding you, adhesive tape in Central America because the Apache blades were literally falling apart (ok, that is not the engine, but still). Russian Mi-8s and Mi-24 have performed phenomenally all over the planet and even those who could afford non-Russian helos used them in the worst conditions (remember the EO Hinds in Sierra Leone?). When I was with the UN, the UN loved the Mi-26s and they were most happy with them. Same for the ICRC in Tadjikistan who used to rent Mi-8s to fly their delegates. They were awed by this helo.

Now, I have to admit that I don't know whether Russian or Western engines are more efficient, but I know that high-efficiency is often achieved at the cost of rugeddness and that the more high-tech a system is, the easier it is to break it down. I won't start the old AK-74 vs M-16 thing here, but ak yourself which one you would rather fight with? I say it is the same with helos, at least for me. I would take a good old 24 over an apache *anytime*, in particular if I am far away from a major maintenance facility.

YMMV

We aren't buying General Electric engines from the eighties, we are buying the latest from Turbomeca. France has helicopters that operate from the jungles of Afrika to the deserts of UAE, to the islands of the Pacific. They have far better safety and operational records than Mi helicopters. Every week I open my defence webring and there is some other Mi helicopter that has crashed. There are more grounded Mi Mils than there are operational. Croatia just bought 10 spanking new ones and only 4 are in operation. There are entire fleets from countries across the globe that are inoperable because we won't provide the service requested. One of my friends was killed in Dagestan when the helo he was in went down due to "pilot error", more like mechanical failure. I watched it crash, flying just fine then a flash from the engine and spun out of control. I have flown in Mi-8s several times and is often the case we have to land prematurely due to gearbox malfunctions. NATO efforts in Afghanistan are taking huge casualties from all the Mi Mils that are crashing. Another thing about them is you can't fly at night nor in bad weather.

Vladimir79 wrote:inoperable because we won't provide the service requested.

That is the key - servicing. Second - frame age and condition. I agree with you, 100%, that if you compare the safety record and performance of a 40 year old Mi-8 which is not properly serviced with a new and well serviced French or US helo, I much rather fly in the latter. But that is a result of ageing and maintenance, not design. But take a Mi-8 and, say, a French Puma. Here is the Wikipedia data:

Mi-8 (introduced 1967):

General characteristics

* Crew: 3 (pilot, copilot, flight engineer)
* Capacity:
o 24 passengers or
o 12 stretchers and seat for 1 medical attendant or
o 3,000 kg (6,600 lb) on internal/external hardpoints
* Length: 18.17 m (59 ft 7 in)
* Rotor diameter: 21.29 m (69 ft 10 in)
* Height: 5.65 m (18 ft 6 in)
* Disc area: 356 m² (3,832 ft²)
* Empty weight: 7,260 kg (16,007 lb)
* Loaded weight: 11,100 kg (24,470 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,455 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Klimov TV3-117Mt turboshafts, 1,454 kW (1,950 shp) each
* Fuel max total capacity: 3,700 l (977 US gal)

Performance

* Maximum speed: 260 km/h (140 kt)
* Range: 450 km (280 mi)
* Ferry range: 960 km (596 mi)
* Service ceiling: 4,500 m (14,765 ft)

Armament

* up to 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) of disposable stores on six hardpoints, including 57 mm S-5 rockets, bombs, or 9M17 Phalanga ATGMs.

Puma (introduced in 1968):

General characteristics

* Crew: 3
* Capacity: 16 passengers
* Length: 18.15 m (59 ft 6½ in)
* Rotor diameter: 15.00 m (49 ft 2½ in)
* Height: 5.14 m (16 ft 10½ in)
* Disc area: 177.0 m² (1,905 ft²)
* Empty weight: 3,536 kg (7,795 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 7,000 kg (15,430 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Turboméca Turmo IVC turboshafts, 1,175 kW (1,575 hp) each

Performance

* Never exceed speed: 273 km/h (147 knots, 169 mph)
* Maximum speed: 257 km/h (138 knots, 159 mph)
* Cruise speed: 248 km/h (134 knots, 154 mph) econ cruise
* Range: 580 km (313 nm, 360 mi)
* Service ceiling: 4,800 m (15,750 ft)
* Rate of climb: 7.1 m/s (1,400 ft/min)

Armament

* Guns:
o Coaxial 7.62 mm (0.30 in) machine guns
o Side-firing 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon
---

Though the two are roughly comparible, the Mi-8 is far better in terms of both the number of soldiers it can carry and in terms of armament.

Now take these two into some nasty environment (arctic, desert, tropical - you name it) and have them both operate without the support of a major maintenance facility. Which one would you pick?

I submit that there is a darn good reason why the Mi-8 is the most numerously produced helicopter ever and that reason is that it is a fantastic helicopter. at least for its time.

The comparison of the Mi-24 and the Apache would be even far, far worse for the Apache. At least the Puma is a good French helo, whereas the Apache is a typical American piece of over-engineered shit, IMHO.

Anyway give the Russian hardware a halfway decent maintenance and it will outperform most Western equivalents in terms of design, reliability and performance.

Farhad Gulemov wrote:

That is the key - servicing. Second - frame age and condition. I agree with you, 100%, that if you compare the safety record and performance of a 40 year old Mi-8 which is not properly serviced with a new and well serviced French or US helo, I much rather fly in the latter. But that is a result of ageing and maintenance, not design. But take a Mi-8 and, say, a French Puma.

Nobody is trying to fly 40 year old Hips. After twenty or more years they are sent to scrap, cannibalised or set up as museum pieces. The Mi-8 and its variants have been in production for 40 years and its basically the same helicopter it was back in the late sixties. Even the Mi-17 is a 1975 helicopter. The reason it is one of the most proliferated helicopters in the world is because we gave them away during the Cold War. After the fall of CCCP, export of them practically came to a standstill. Now Eurocopter and Sikorsky are the world leaders in helicopters while Oboronprom has a rinky-dink 4% market share. Now all of our new production helicopters will have French engines...

Russian Helicopters COO Andrei Shibitov, said that: “Our long-term cooperation with Turbomeca has been very pleasant and successful and we are looking forward to enhance our partnership. Turbomeca engines are well-known all over the world, including Russia, not just in France and Europe. It will be easier for our prospective helicopters to move onto the global and European markets if they are fitted with Turbomeca engines. The Ardiden 3 is the modern engine Ka helicopters need for their specific requirements, with a double advantage: a low operating cost thanks to high reliability and an exceptionally low fuel consumption”

This new agreement follows different contracts, signed recently:

In November 2009, Safran signed a cooperation and partnership framework agreement with Russian state-owned company Rostechnologies, in particular concerning engines for helicopters such as the Ka-226, Ka-62 and Mi-34.

In 2009, Turbomeca and Russian Helicopters contracts for the development and serial engine production of the Arrius 2G1 to be installed on the Ka-226T, the Russian twin-engine helicopter with double counter-rotating rotor. The certification of this aircraft is expected in 2011.

Six months ago, Turbomeca has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Russian Helicopters for the Arrius 2F to power the Mi-34 Sapsan helicopter.

http://www.helihub.com/2010/02/27/russian-helicopters-choose-turbomeca-ardiden-3g-engine-for-kamov-ka62/

Though the two are roughly comparible, the Mi-8 is far better in terms of both the number of soldiers it can carry and in terms of armament.

Dude, France is long past making the Puma. They started making the Super Puma in 1978, then the Cougar in 1990 and now they are on to the Super Cougar. France never stopped developing their helicopters like we did. Compare a Super Cougar to a Mi-17 and see how obsolete it is.

Specifications (EC 725 Super Cougar)

* Useful load: 5,670 kg
* Powerplant: 2× Turbomeca Makila 1A4 turboshafts, 1,800 kW (2,413 shp) each
* Maximum speed: 324 km/h, 201 mph (175 kts)
* Range: 857 km
* Service ceiling: 6,095 m


Specifications (Mil-17)

* Useful load: 4,000kg
* Powerplant: 2× Klimov TV3-117Mt turboshafts, 1,454 kW (1,950 shp) each
* Maximum speed: 257 km/h (138 knots, 159 mph)
* Range: 495 km
* Service ceiling 5000 m

________________________

Only reason Mi-17 sells is because it has decent performance at rock-bottom prices. No denying "back-in-the-day" it was one of the best transport helos in the world, but the world has moved on and we haven't. Now we have new helicopter lines that don't have engines, until we go to France that is.

Now take these two into some nasty environment (arctic, desert, tropical - you name it) and have them both operate without the support of a major maintenance facility. Which one would you pick?

Considering Puma hasn't been made since 1987 it is an irrelevant question. I would much rather take a Super Cougar.

I submit that there is a darn good reason why the Mi-8 is the most numerously produced helicopter ever and that reason is that it is a fantastic helicopter. at least for its time.

It was a great helicopter... for its time. Its time has long past yet we still make its variants.

The comparison of the Mi-24 and the Apache would be even far, far worse for the Apache. At least the Puma is a good French helo, whereas the Apache is a typical American piece of over-engineered shit, IMHO.

Apache is so bad it operates every day in Iraq. Problems in Albania were tied to bad tail rotor assemblies and bad clutches in the gearbox... like Mi has never had problems with its gearbox? That and poor engine quality are what causes most Hips to crash and the record is far worse than American choppers.

Anyway give the Russian hardware a halfway decent maintenance and it will outperform most Western equivalents in terms of design, reliability and performance.

Maintenance costs money, and it is far more expensive in the long-run to operate gaz-guzzling maintenance intensive Klimov engines made at Motor Sich than it is to get highly reliable and efficient ones made by Turbomeca. French helicopters are several times more reliable than Russian, better performance, that is why they sell far more than we do.

They sell more? are you sure about that? I am pretty sure there are more mils and hinds in the air then there are of French helis.

Vladimir79 wrote:Dude, France is long past making the Puma. Nobody is trying to fly 40 year old Hips.

Yes, but you are comparing them and that is like apples and oranges. Comparing the Mi-8 to the Puma makes sense, they were designed and fielded practically at the same time. Comparing the 1967 Mi-8 to the 2005 EC 725 Super Cougar makes no sense at all (40 years separate the two). Why, for example, not compare the Super Cougar a Klimov (rather then P&W) equipped Mil Mi-38 then:

* Useful load: 4,000 kg to 5,000kg
* Powerplant: Klimov TV7-117V[2] turboshaft, 1,864 kW (2,500 shp) each
* Maximum speed: 300 km/h (186 mph)
* Range: 1,300 km (811 miles)
* Service ceiling: 6,500 m (21,320 ft)

Vladimir79 wrote:Apache is so bad it operates every day in Iraq.

Indeed. And with how many US bases and what kind of maintenance tail behind it? And its not just the Apache, its all of US aircraft (rotor and fixed) which need constant repairs, maintenance and "Yankee know how". Give the Russians the same $$$ as the Yanks get to fly their birds, and you sill see the number of accidents/malfunctions go down dramatically.

sepheronx wrote:They sell more? are you sure about that? I am pretty sure there are more mils and hinds in the air then there are of French helis.

There are more Mis and Kamovs on the ground than French Helis, most of it rusting junk from the Cold War. They aren't in the air. Eurocopter is the largest manufacturer in the world. Turbomeca is the largest engine maker in the world since they not only supply Eurocopter but Russian and Indian domestic models.

Farhad Gulemov wrote:

Yes, but you are comparing them and that is like apples and oranges. Comparing the Mi-8 to the Puma makes sense, they were designed and fielded practically at the same time. Comparing the 1967 Mi-8 to the 2005 EC 725 Super Cougar makes no sense at all (40 years separate the two). Why, for example, not compare the Super Cougar a Klimov (rather then P&W) equipped Mil Mi-38 then:

* Useful load: 4,000 kg to 5,000kg
* Powerplant: Klimov TV7-117V[2] turboshaft, 1,864 kW (2,500 shp) each
* Maximum speed: 300 km/h (186 mph)
* Range: 1,300 km (811 miles)
* Service ceiling: 6,500 m (21,320 ft)

What good is the comparison if we have to use foreign engines? There is no such thing as the TV7-117V[2]. It doesn't exist. TV7-117V is still seeking funding for its research. The project is delayed until this engine is made operational since P&W is sanctioned from selling to Oboronprom. Turbomeca backed out of this project since they feared IP would be lost... its looks like their suspicions were correct. Now China has the Mi-38 and claim it a domestic civilian helicopter. But it isn't a problem for China to get P&W engines under a civilian contract clause. The timetable for Mi-38 was pushed back to 2014 when the sanctions hit. It is a secret that China is the one doing most of the qualifications now on Mi-38 since they can get the engines. You heard it first here on RMF.

Indeed. And with how many US bases and what kind of maintenance tail behind it? And its not just the Apache, its all of US aircraft (rotor and fixed) which need constant repairs, maintenance and "Yaknee know how". Give the Russians the same $$$ as the Yanks get to fly their birds, and you sill see the number of accidents/malfunctions go down dramatically.

Throwing money at it isn't the solution. You throw money at Oboronprom and it will just be spent buying new dachas for the executives. The company needs to be torn down and built from the bottom up with stricter regulation and accountability.