Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

http://russia-insider.com/en/science-tech/revival-russias-aviation-industry-new-russian-transport-aircraft/ri13262

Real insiders?

I see too much reference to the western aircrafts... it is like if they need to do the assimilation to western aircrafts to understand the overall outlook in Russia. Also Im surprised to read about the "unfortunate" closure of the Antonov Bureau in a suposedly pro-Russian source that is accussing to others of having pro-Ukranian sympathies.

I see an important technical mistake on this article. The article ignored the existence of the Il-96, but Russia recently ordered some of them. This is an aircraft with a maximum payload of 92000 Kg in its transport version, and a maximum take-off weight of 270000 Kg. It is just in the class of the mentioned An-22.

Taking into account the existence of the Il-96, I doubt that Russia really needs to design fast a new aircraft of the same class (named Il-106 in the article) to replace the An-22. According to the reports of the public sources, Russia would have 5 An-22 in active service and 6 more in the reserve. Until now Russia aproximately ordered the same amount of Il-96. I would say that the replacement of the An-22 is being covered or at least is very easily doable with the ordered Il-96.

The Il-96 can be used perfectly as gap closer until the new Il-PAK-TA be finished (like the new version of the Tu-160 seems to be used as a gap closer until the new Tu-PAK-DA be ready).

http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/
http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/1189/

eehnie wrote:http://russia-insider.com/en/science-tech/revival-russias-aviation-industry-new-russian-transport-aircraft/ri13262

Real insiders?

I see too much reference to the western aircrafts... it is like if they need to do the assimilation to western aircrafts to understand the overall outlook in Russia. Also Im surprised to read about the "unfortunate" closure of the Antonov Bureau in a suposedly pro-Russian source that is accussing to others of having pro-Ukranian sympathies.

I see an important technical mistake on this article. The article ignored the existence of the Il-96, but Russia recently ordered some of them. This is an aircraft with a maximum payload of 92000 Kg in its transport version, and a maximum take-off weight of 270000 Kg. It is just in the class of the mentioned An-22.

Taking into account the existence of the Il-96, I doubt that Russia really needs to design fast a new aircraft of the same class (named Il-106 in the article) to replace the An-22. According to the reports of the public sources, Russia would have 5 An-22 in active service and 6 more in the reserve. Until now Russia aproximately ordered the same amount of Il-96. I would say that the replacement of the An-22 is being covered or at least is very easily doable with the ordered Il-96.

The Il-96 can be used perfectly as gap closer until the new Il-PAK-TA be finished (like the new version of the Tu-160 seems to be used as a gap closer until the new Tu-PAK-DA be ready).

http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/
http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/1189/

The Il-96 can't operate in unprepared runways, it also needs ground infraestructure to load/unload (as it has no ramps), so it can't really replace a military cargo aircraft like the An-22 or the An-124.

Svyatoslavich wrote:

eehnie wrote:http://russia-insider.com/en/science-tech/revival-russias-aviation-industry-new-russian-transport-aircraft/ri13262

Real insiders?

I see too much reference to the western aircrafts... it is like if they need to do the assimilation to western aircrafts to understand the overall outlook in Russia. Also Im surprised to read about the "unfortunate" closure of the Antonov Bureau in a suposedly pro-Russian source that is accussing to others of having pro-Ukranian sympathies.

I see an important technical mistake on this article. The article ignored the existence of the Il-96, but Russia recently ordered some of them. This is an aircraft with a maximum payload of 92000 Kg in its transport version, and a maximum take-off weight of 270000 Kg. It is just in the class of the mentioned An-22.

Taking into account the existence of the Il-96, I doubt that Russia really needs to design fast a new aircraft of the same class (named Il-106 in the article) to replace the An-22. According to the reports of the public sources, Russia would have 5 An-22 in active service and 6 more in the reserve. Until now Russia aproximately ordered the same amount of Il-96. I would say that the replacement of the An-22 is being covered or at least is very easily doable with the ordered Il-96.

The Il-96 can be used perfectly as gap closer until the new Il-PAK-TA be finished (like the new version of the Tu-160 seems to be used as a gap closer until the new Tu-PAK-DA be ready).

http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/
http://www.ilyushin.org/en/aircrafts/transport/1189/

The Il-96 can't operate in unprepared runways, it also needs ground infraestructure to load/unload (as it has no ramps), so it can't really replace a military cargo aircraft like the An-22 or the An-124.

The ordered Il-96 will receive some works to adapt them to several roles. Some of them from existing units and others will be built new.

Do you think it is not possible to fix it? Do you think it is easier to do a new aircraft of the same class, of the same dimenssions?

eehnie wrote:

Svyatoslavich wrote:

Taking into account the existence of the Il-96, I doubt that Russia really needs to design fast a new aircraft of the same class (named Il-106 in the article) to replace the An-22. According to the reports of the public sources, Russia would have 5 An-22 in active service and 6 more in the reserve. Until now Russia aproximately ordered the same amount of Il-96. I would say that the replacement of the An-22 is being covered or at least is very easily doable with the ordered Il-96.

The Il-96 can't operate in unprepared runways, it also needs ground infraestructure to load/unload (as it has no ramps), so it can't really replace a military cargo aircraft like the An-22 or the An-124.

The ordered Il-96 will receive some works to adapt them to several roles. Some of them from existing units and others will be built new.

Do you think it is not possible to fix it? Do you think it is easier to do a new aircraft of the same class, of the same dimenssions?

Eehnie, the Il-96 is an airliner. With low-slung wings with the spar arrangement passing directly through the lower fuselage body.
It was not designed as a cargo transport aircraft/airlifter.
Being the same size as the An-22 is meaningless if you don't look at design features.

There are very solid and valid reasons that airlifters all around the world have features such as shoulder mounted wings for example. For the exact same reasons that every single USSR and now Russian airlifter/cargo planes are designed with features like that.

It would be far far cheaper and far far better to design a purpose built cargo lifter from scratch than try and force or "fix" the Il-96 into a role it simply isn't designed for. Doing that would end up with a completely new aircraft anyway....... an aircraft with a high mounted wing, loading ramps, and a floor designed to take cargo or certain loads.. In other words, a cargo transport plane/airlifter.

wilhelm wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Svyatoslavich wrote:

Taking into account the existence of the Il-96, I doubt that Russia really needs to design fast a new aircraft of the same class (named Il-106 in the article) to replace the An-22. According to the reports of the public sources, Russia would have 5 An-22 in active service and 6 more in the reserve. Until now Russia aproximately ordered the same amount of Il-96. I would say that the replacement of the An-22 is being covered or at least is very easily doable with the ordered Il-96.

The Il-96 can't operate in unprepared runways, it also needs ground infraestructure to load/unload (as it has no ramps), so it can't really replace a military cargo aircraft like the An-22 or the An-124.

The ordered Il-96 will receive some works to adapt them to several roles. Some of them from existing units and others will be built new.

Do you think it is not possible to fix it? Do you think it is easier to do a new aircraft of the same class, of the same dimenssions?

Eehnie, the Il-96 is an airliner. With low-slung wings with the spar arrangement passing directly through the lower fuselage body.
It was not designed as a cargo transport aircraft/airlifter.
Being the same size as the An-22 is meaningless if you don't look at design features.

There are very solid and valid reasons that airlifters all around the world have features such as shoulder mounted wings for example. For the exact same reasons that every single USSR and now Russian airlifter/cargo planes are designed with features like that.

It would be far far cheaper and far far better to design a purpose built cargo lifter from scratch than try and force or "fix" the Il-96 into a role it simply isn't designed for. Doing that would end up with a completely new aircraft anyway....... an aircraft with a high mounted wing, loading ramps, and a floor designed to take cargo or certain loads.. In other words, a cargo transport plane/airlifter.

Check the links that I posted. It clearly shows that Im talking about a transport version of the Il-96 that is being offered for sale. And the Russian MoD ordered several of them for different roles.

Despite to be a little better or a little worse design for this use, the question is that the transport version of the Il-96 must be considered before to go after a new aircraft. The aircraft is real today, and the transport version of the Il-96 would be able to do the work of the An-22 with only some minor changes. The major chapters of the design are valid. The engines of the Il-96 are useful without changes, the aerodynamical balance is done, the size and dimessions are just the demanded (as example the fuselage diameter of the transport version of the Il-96 is the right for the new armata tanks and is about the same of the An-22), and the aircraft has an outstanding range (5000Km at full load, 90000Kg, with more than 10000Km for smaller loads specified in the link).

If the solution to the question is to design practically a twin aircraft but new, I would think twice before to afford the expensive process before the service life of the Il-96 be finished. As example, which engines would take Ilyushin to do this new aircraft, the engines of the Il-96 or would demand new engines? To take the same engines after to rule out the Il-96 would be like a joke, and to design new engines of this size is really difficult and expensive.

eehnie wrote:
and the transport version of the Il-96 would be able to do the work of the An-22 with only some minor changes. The major chapters of the design are valid. The engines of the Il-96 are useful without changes, the aerodynamical balance is done, the size and dimessions are just the demanded (as example the fuselage diameter of the transport version of the Il-96 is the right for the new armata tanks and is about the same of the An-22), and the aircraft has an outstanding range (5000Km at full load, 90000Kg, with more than 10000Km for smaller loads specified in the link).

No, the usable fuselage diameter is not the same as the An-22.
Like I said, look at the wing of the Il-96.
The entire wing spar structure, with associated integrated fuel tanks, goes slap bang through the middle of the lower fuselage. The undercarriage needs somewhere to go. There is simply no way around those inconvenient details.

The wing spar structure and undercarriage bays ensure that there is a maximum internal height at that point that is only a little higher than an An-12 or C-130, and is almost 2 meters lower than the cargo bay of the An-22. It is too low for an Armata, apart from the fact that you can't get an Armata in the plane in the first place without destroying the plane.

The links you provided detail the transport version capable of transporting standardised aviation containers, called Unit Load Device. They are probably more accurately described as pallets rather than containers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_load_device

They are small. If you've ever flown, or been at an airport, you've probably seen some before.
You will find the Ill-96 on the list in the wiki link above, and it's capacity, along with all the other airliners these compact units were designed to be carried by.

Go and google pics of the internal cargo configuration of the Il-96, as well as it's external layout. All will be revealed to you.
Along with the wing and undercarriage encroachment, the cargo floor on the transport Il-96 mirrors the passenger model. Now think about it for a moment, and all that entails regarding it's purpose in structural strength.

wilhelm wrote:

eehnie wrote:
and the transport version of the Il-96 would be able to do the work of the An-22 with only some minor changes. The major chapters of the design are valid. The engines of the Il-96 are useful without changes, the aerodynamical balance is done, the size and dimessions are just the demanded (as example the fuselage diameter of the transport version of the Il-96 is the right for the new armata tanks and is about the same of the An-22), and the aircraft has an outstanding range (5000Km at full load, 90000Kg, with more than 10000Km for smaller loads specified in the link).

No, the usable fuselage diameter is not the same as the An-22.
Like I said, look at the wing of the Il-96.
The entire wing spar structure, with associated integrated fuel tanks, goes slap bang through the middle of the lower fuselage. The undercarriage needs somewhere to go. There is simply no way around those inconvenient details.

The wing spar structure and undercarriage bays ensure that there is a maximum internal height at that point that is only a little higher than an An-12 or C-130, and is almost 2 meters lower than the cargo bay of the An-22. It is too low for an Armata, apart from the fact that you can't get an Armata in the plane in the first place without destroying the plane.

The links you provided detail the transport version capable of transporting standardised aviation containers, called Unit Load Device. They are probably more accurately described as pallets rather than containers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_load_device

They are small. If you've ever flown, or been at an airport, you've probably seen some before.
You will find the Ill-96 on the list in the wiki link above, and it's capacity, along with all the other airliners these compact units were designed to be carried by.

Go and google pics of the internal cargo configuration of the Il-96, as well as it's external layout. All will be revealed to you.
Along with the wing and undercarriage encroachment, the cargo floor on the transport Il-96 mirrors the passenger model. Now think about it for a moment, and all that entails regarding it's purpose in structural strength.

The fuselage diameter of the Il-96 is 6.08m, the fuselage diameter of the An-22 is 6.20m and the fuselage diameter of the Il-76 is 4.80m. The fuselage diameter of a new Il-106 of 80-100 tons of payload would be very close to this measure (6.20m). And the external dimenssions of an aircraft are far more difficult to change than the internal since they affect to the aerodynamical balance of the aircraft.

To analize the internal necessary dimenssions, it is necessary to take into account that tanks are high density loads. The volume of the cargo cabin of an An-22 would allow to have 3 T-14 inside the aircraft, but it would exceed the payload by far. The An-22 has a payload of 80000 Kg which mean that only can transport one T-14 tank plus something else under 30 tons. It means that most of its cargo cabin of 33m of lenght would be empty if used for this purpose.

The Il-96 has a payload of 92000 Kg, which means that is surely is still not enough for 2 T-14. The question that you commented about the wings structure of the Il-96 affects to a section of the potential cargo cabin of this aircraft (after some minor changes in the internal distribution of the aircraft plus some new door). The central section of the cargo cabin would be affected, but I doubt that it would not leave still sections in the cargo cabin, in the front and/or in the rear part, with the lenght required for a T-14 taking into account that the height of the tank would be about 3.3 m but only in part of its 10.8 m of length (according to some reports that may not be exact). The range of this aircraft with only a T-14 inside would be more than 10000 Km.

Between the minor changes in relative terms that I commented, would be to change the internal cargo cabin and to open one or two doors in the fuselage to allow to put inside the aircraft some military loads, like tanks. These doors need not to be necessarily ramps, because it is possible to use external ramps (far easier and cheaper to build than to design and build an entire new aircraft).

Again I need to say that I would think twice before to rule out the Il-96, and of course, it is a big mistake to ignore it. The An-22 will not be in service for the time of the T-14 since the newest of them is of more than 40 years old and as the article explained, are rarely used even today (and in fact its role is being covered by other aircrafts without a formal replacement still).

From other topic:

GarryB wrote:

For other non combat roles like the air transport in no contested areas, I see well to take civil aircrafts and to adapt them for military use, when only minor changes are needed. In this case would be the aircrafts cited in the previous comment and it also applies for land transport in no contested areas. I also see well to help developing new aircrafts for a class where there is not a civil alternative, something more likely to happen with aircrafts of big size like the Il-214 or bigger.

Civilian cargo and military cargo are totally different... military cargo tends to use rear ramps for loading and unloading, while civilian cargo tends to be side loaded in pallets.

Smaller aircraft are cheaper to buy and maintain and with enlarged fuel tanks can have extended range easily enough.

For small transport aircrafts and helicopters, if there is not an initiative for civil use it is a sign of warning. Also it is a sign of warning if the civil initiatives of the recent years in the same class failed. If it happens the entire class maybe in question for civil use despite to be more difficult to pack the loads than in the military transport.

In the past there were no economic sanctions that effected parts and support... and you simply can't use foreign transport in your military just because your civilian airlines use them.

The main point of introducing the Il-112 and Il-114 is to remove foreign transport types from the inventory. the fact that the digitisation of design and upgrade of systems and new efficient engines is all paid for by the military is just a bonus to civilian uses. Western civilian airlines get the same subsidy perk when their military buys a whole lot of aircraft and reduces the costs for the factory with large orders they would otherwise not get.

The changes in de doors/ramp of an aircraft are not mayor changes. This is why, most of the current, including all the most modern aircrafts used or ordered by the Russian Armed Forces on these non-combat roles, have versions for civil use. Only the aircrafts and helicopters for combat roles have not civil versions.

In fact, checking all the models (new) of the last 25 years in Russia, between all the relatively succesful models for non combat roles the alone without orders from the Russian Armed Forces is the Su-Superjet-100. And between all the models without a relative success, only a few received orders from the Russian Armed Forces (An-148 and An-140).

There is a clear trend that I expect to continue with the new models that are reaching the production level. There is a clear relation between military and civil markets for aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles. Of course the orders of the Russian Armed Forces help in a success, but the success in aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles comes not only from orders of the Russian Armed Forces. This is why I think that the lack of a civil initiative and demand in some class (by size) would be a warning sign also for a military use. If the civil sector is not demanding sufficiently aircrafts of some sizes, the entire class can be in question, and the Russian Armed Forces need to think if it is necessary for them to have aircrafts of the less demanded sizes, taking into account that it is easier to pack the military loads than the civil loads, as explained in previous comments of this topic.

Also for aircrafts and helicopters of mid or small size, the lack of interest of foreign armed forces for aircrafts or helicopters of some class can be also a warning sign about the entire class.

Not every aircraft or helicopter need to be replaced always by exact twin models. The current main battle tanks are significantly bigger than the succesful T-34.

The changes in de doors/ramp of an aircraft are not mayor changes. This is why, most of the current, including all the most modern aircrafts used or ordered by the Russian Armed Forces on these non-combat roles, have versions for civil use. Only the aircrafts and helicopters for combat roles have not civil versions.

Structurally they are very significant changes.

The Russian transport aircraft in service were developed in Soviet times and their development was driven by military requirements... not civil ones.

In fact, checking all the models (new) of the last 25 years in Russia, between all the relatively succesful models for non combat roles the alone without orders from the Russian Armed Forces is the Su-Superjet-100. And between all the models without a relative success, only a few received orders from the Russian Armed Forces (An-148, An-140 and Ka-226).

A period of no money and the restructuring of an enormous Soviet force down to a much smaller Russian force is not a period to be learning anything from... apart from the fact that over the last 25 years Russia didn't buy much military equipment... that is why over the next 10-15 years they are restocking with new and upgraded kit.

There is a clear trend that I expect to continue with the new models that are reaching the production level. There is a clear relation between military and civil markets for aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles. Of course the orders of the Russian Armed Forces help in a success, but the success in aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles comes not only from orders of the Russian Armed Forces. This is why I think that the lack of a civil initiative and demand in some class (by size) would be a warning sign also for a military use.

Sorry but your logic is wrong... you can't use the 9 months before a child is born with regards to the amount of quality sleep a mother and a father get as any sort of indication as to what sort of sleep they will get after the baby is born... that is just stupid.

The military buys things it NEEDS to do its job... it is not interested in what will sell on the open international civilian market... that is not their problem. If Armata weighs 60 tons in its heaviest version it will not buy planes with a 50 ton payload because there is a bigger international demand for aircraft with that payload capacity... WTF are they supposed to do take the turrets off for air transport?

If the civil sector is not demanding sufficiently aircrafts of some sizes, the entire class can be in question, and the Russian Armed Forces need to think if it is necessary for them to have aircrafts of the less demanded sizes, taking into account that it is easier to pack the military loads than the civil loads, as explained in previous comments of this topic.

The Military has specific loads it needs to move... with T- Series tanks in the 40-49 ton range do you think it is an accident that the Il-76 can carry a 52 ton payload in the upgraded older models and 60 tons in its new model?

The civilian market wont front up the cash needed to develop a whole transport plane... they just take what the military pays for and adapts them to their needs.

Also for aircrafts and helicopters of mid or small size, the lack of interest of foreign armed forces for aircrafts or helicopters of some class can be also a warning sign about the entire class.

Yes because if Fiji does not need 10 ton attack helos WTF would Russia need Mi-28Ns and Ka-52s for???

Not every aircraft or helicopter need to be replaced always by exact twin models. The current main battle tanks are significantly bigger than the succesful T-34.

As I said above the Russian military has just gone through a long period of downsizing with a lot of kit withdrawn or sold or scrapped... If they still have something in use and in service like An-2, An-24, An-26, An-32, Il-76, An-22, An-124, then you can probably bet your house they actually need them.

In fact they could use an An-225 as well for their space industry but did not have one in service.

The future plans might require different aircraft with different performances, but existing aircraft are being used now and most likely will need to be replaced... the Ukrainian ones first for obvious reasons.

And BTW the Il-476 is only just in production for the Russian military... considering the way the old models sold I suspect it will be very popular too. An Il-106 class aircraft would also likely sell very well just looking at the sales of the ridiculously expensive C-17 to date.

first of all if a company has service in both civil and military equipment means that has more money to spend on R&D ......because on extra money come from civil market.....that means bigger salary for workers..... that is why i would put KRET and others to have civil department too
because russia minister of defence as others in the world cant afford to buy at a extra high cost the equipment just for the company who produce weapons ......

As Victor commented, it is possible to find some sinergies between the civil and the military markets for non-combat aircrafts and helicopters.

The comment of GarryB is wrong instead, and the long record of Russia designing aircrafts and helicopters prove it.

First of all the Russian President, that is the boss of the Russian Armed Forces, and the Russian government are responsible of both the military and the civil air transport. To solve it, they created decades ago, a series of Bureaus in charge of giving solutions to the needs of both at same time.

The design bureaus in charge of the solutions for the military air transport are the same in charge of the solutions for the civil air transport. And the aircrafts and helicopters they created have been used most of the times for both uses. For it, these aircrafts and helicopters are designed to meet the requirements of both military and civil sides. The designs of aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles like the air transpor in uncontested areas, share the most important chapters of the design (engines, main structure, external dimensions, aerodynamical balance,...).

In the case of the structure the main structure is made compatible for both military and civil use. Doing it this way, only minor changes are needed to change doors, windows or to include a ramp. This is possible if the synergies begin since the design process. It is so silly to argue against something that Russia is doing since at least the WWII. I'm sure Russia is working at same time civil and military requirements since decades to do aircrafts and helicopters compatible with both sides of the market, with only minor differences.

Other important question. The last 25 years have been years of low demand and low sales in overall terms, but this is why I was talking in my previous comment about a relative success or a relative lack of success in the aircrafts and helicopters of this age. Despite to be a bad time for new models, it is not possible to qualify as successful a model of aircraft or helicopter that reached not 50 units produced (plus prototypes) or that has an average production of less than 5 units per year of production in its first 10 years for sale in the market, unless it is a very big aircraft.

All the new aircrafts and helicopters designed for combat roles in the last 25 years reached this level of production, while the situation for the aircrafts and helicopters for non combat roles was exposed in my previous comment:

eehnie wrote:In fact, checking all the models (new) of the last 25 years in Russia, between all the relatively succesful models for non combat roles the alone without orders from the Russian Armed Forces is the Su-Superjet-100. And between all the models without a relative success, only a few received orders from the Russian Armed Forces (An-148 and An-140).

Also some older models have continued in production these years with better sales and production than this level. The most clear example is the Mi-8, but even big aircrafts like the Tu-204/214 (in the market since 1990) reached this level of production revealing more clearly the lack of success of other new smaller aircrafts and helicopters.

Taking all this into account there is room to see differences in the success or the lack of success of the different modesl of the last 25 years. And we can conclude that there is a close relation between the success of new aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles, in the civil and military sides of the market. And even, we can see how the civil users expresed very low interest by the models that attracted not military orders, except in the case of the Su-Superjet100, being a little more tough than the Russian Armed Forces, that have been giving room to some models without appeal in the civil sector.

Then why not to take it into account and to take as a warning sign the lack of civil interest, initiative or demand about and aircraft, an helicopter and even an entire class by weight? Noting bad on it. Surely it would have helped to avoid the purchase for the Russian Armed Forces of some models with evident lack of success like the An-148 and the An-140, and would have been positive for the chance of the Su-Superjet100 in the Russian Armed Forces.

There are some strict, very strict needs that leaded to the purchase of these models with lack of success like GarryB is sugesting? There are really as strict needs that only can be solved by the An-148 and An-140?, or the needs of the Russian Armed Forces are more open and the work that these aircrafts and helicopters are doing would be solved also by other aircrafts of the same or of different weight class? I would say that the needs of the Russian Armed Forces can be solved also by other models of aircrafts and helicopters. The An-148 and An-140 are generic models for their weight class. Russia would be able to replace the An-148 and the An-140 easily. And surely shoud do it.

By the same way, the interest or lack of interest of foreing countries like those who buy habitually to Russia big amount of weapons of all types would be something to take into account. Despite the comment about Fiji, one example of what I was saying is the interest of India in the project of the Il-214. Foreign orders help in the success of a new aircraft or helicopter. Lack of interest means lack of future orders, and also can be considered as a warning sign for an aircraft, an helicopter or an entire class by weight. All this is basic management, despite what GarryB said and surely Russia is doing it in a decent number of cases. Russia has some specific needs that other countries can not reach but this is in the level of the biggest and most advanced weapons, not in the level of vehicles for non-combat roles. In fact all the aircrafts and helicopters designed for military and civil air transport are for sale for other countries for both military and civil use.

first of all if a company has service in both civil and military equipment means that has more money to spend on R&D ......because on extra money come from civil market.....that means bigger salary for workers..... that is why i would put KRET and others to have civil department too
because russia minister of defence as others in the world cant afford to buy at a extra high cost the equipment just for the company who produce weapons ......

Of course aviation companies will sell equipment on the civilian market... most of the money KRET has made was from navigation systems.

I don't understand your point however... most aircraft developed by the Soviet Union and now by Russia had military origins or military versions.

The new superjet and MS-21 are exceptions as they are designed for the civilian market but even they will likely end up with military versions.

As Victor commented, it is possible to find some sinergies between the civil and the military markets for non-combat aircrafts and helicopters.

Of course but when the military is paying the bill they get say in the specs of the aircraft and I can guarantee they wont compromise the design to make it appeal to the civilian market... it is up to the manufacturer to adapt the design.

First of all the Russian President, that is the boss of the Russian Armed Forces, and the Russian government are responsible of both the military and the civil air transport. To solve it, they created decades ago, a series of Bureaus in charge of giving solutions to the needs of both at same time.

The design bureaus in charge of the solutions for the military air transport are the same in charge of the solutions for the civil air transport. And the aircrafts and helicopters they created have been used most of the times for both uses. For it, these aircrafts and helicopters are designed to meet the requirements of both military and civil sides. The designs of aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles like the air transpor in uncontested areas, share the most important chapters of the design (engines, main structure, external dimensions, aerodynamical balance,...).

Name one Soviet helicopter designed for civilian use.

There aren't any.

the Mi-8 and Mi-2 and Mi-4 and Mi-6 were all used by civilian companies and are still used today but they are military helos designed for military use.

Even today the Mi-34 and Ansat and Ka-62 are all designed for the military first and foremost with potential for civilian versions later.

Despite to be a bad time for new models, it is not possible to qualify as successful a model of aircraft or helicopter that reached not 50 units produced (plus prototypes) or that has an average production of less than 5 units per year of production in its first 10 years for sale in the market, unless it is a very big aircraft.

Because civilan use customers are cheap bastards and would rather buy off the shelf air buses and boeings than risk their own scarce money backing a new Russian design.

What Russia needs it military funding for new designs, so that when the design is paid for and airframes shipped to the military the civil aviation companies will buy civilian versions with a huge military subsidy. Worked for Boeing and worked for Airbus and worked for Ilusion and Tupolev amd antonov too when money was still being spent.

Surely it would have helped to avoid the purchase for the Russian Armed Forces of some models with evident lack of success like the An-148, the An-140 and the Ka-226, and would have been positive for the chance of the Su-Superjet100 in the Russian Armed Forces.

Antonov purchases were blackmail to keep ukraine on side.... and it didn't work. The Ka-226T is a brand new uncertified aircraft that will probably go into mass production and fill a niche left by the Mi-2.

The Russian military has no use for a Superjet or MS-21.

Foreign orders help in the success of a new aircraft or helicopter.

Rubbish. The Il-476 will be a success even if no one else buys any... and once production ramps up they will likely be bought in rather large numbers by a wide range of countries needing new transports for which C-17s are not an option.

GarryB wrote:

As Victor commented, it is possible to find some sinergies between the civil and the military markets for non-combat aircrafts and helicopters.

Of course but when the military is paying the bill they get say in the specs of the aircraft and I can guarantee they wont compromise the design to make it appeal to the civilian market... it is up to the manufacturer to adapt the design.

Do not be wrong Garry, the military have not own funding surces, who pay the bills is the Russian government that is also in charge of the solutions for the civil air transport.

GarryB wrote:Even today the Mi-34 and Ansat and Ka-62 are all designed for the military first and foremost with potential for civilian versions later.

Surely you mean the Mi-38, well, all them are today for sale for civil use. When an helicopter is previewed to be in the civil markets, it affect to the design process since early stages. In this process the solution for military and civil requirements come at same time. It is a lot more expensive to do a design for military requirements only and to adapt it to civl use later, than to design compatible for both since the begin.

In earlier models like the Mi-2 and Mi-8, I do not know exactly if they were designed for military purposes only or not. In the case of being designs only to meet military requirements, maybe good luck, or maybe brilliant designs, but if both have been used for civil customers without changes, it is because their designs are meeting their requirements.

GarryB wrote:

Despite to be a bad time for new models, it is not possible to qualify as successful a model of aircraft or helicopter that reached not 50 units produced (plus prototypes) or that has an average production of less than 5 units per year of production in its first 10 years for sale in the market, unless it is a very big aircraft.

Because civilan use customers are cheap bastards and would rather buy off the shelf air buses and boeings than risk their own scarce money backing a new Russian design.

What Russia needs it military funding for new designs, so that when the design is paid for and airframes shipped to the military the civil aviation companies will buy civilian versions with a huge military subsidy. Worked for Boeing and worked for Airbus and worked for Ilusion and Tupolev amd antonov too when money was still being spent.

Only it is possible to say this if we consider that all the Russian aircrafts and helicopters offered for civil use in the last 25 years have been a failure. I do not think this is right. We can see cases of relative success as explained. When a design has been good enough, it has been also a success in relative terms.

The Russian model of research and development of new aircrafts and helicopters has public funding, is done by public companies, but at same time is a competitive model, and it is not rare to see different solutions for a class at same time. It is natural that some of them, the weakest designs, fail to the better designs. Some degree of lack of success is assured. This is another point where you tend to be very rigid. We also see it for non-combat land transport, in unarmoured or low armoured trucks, that is other competitive sector). It happened until now, and it will happen with future models of aircrafts and helicopters (a degree of lack of success) even if the overall situation of the Russian civil market improves. Not all the future models of aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles will succeed.

These would be the aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles that are in production and have been at least a relative success, or are in development and I expect a success (based mostly in the number of orders declared and other details). By weight class:

An-124

Il-96

Il-76/78/A-50
Il-62 (surely to be out of production fast)

Tu-204/214
Tu-154 (surely to be out of production fast)

Il-214
Su-Superjet100
Mi-26

An-72/74

An-24/26/30/32

Mi-38
Mi-8/...
Yak-130

Ka-60/62
Let L-410 (now of a Russian company)

Mi-Ansat
Ka-226
Yak-54/152

While many people can think that there is not a degree of standardization in the Russian Armed Forces, the reality is different. Between all the non-combat aircrafts and helicopters of the 5 smaller cathegories (An-72/74 or smaller) in active service, about a 55% would be Mi-8/..., about a 1% of Ka-226, about a 24% would be trainer aircrafts and helicopters, and about a 20% are non trainer aircrafts (almost all still in service from the Sovietic age). With the last group decreasing every year.

If I would need to say which helicopter can be the successor of the Mi-8, I would say the Mi-38, and if I would need to say which helicopter is the successor of the Mi-2 I would say the Mi-Ansat.

For the classes of smaller size, it seems to be some keys for a success in the last 25 years. It is to be a trainer aircraft (Yak-130, Yak-54/152) or helicopter (Mi-Ansat), it is to be a utility helicopter (Mi-38, Ka-60/62), or both (Mi-Ansat in fact). All the non-combat aircrafts of the size of the An-72/74 or smaller failed in the last 25 years, except the successful trainers. I do not expect it to change, unless a very big public effort, surely unnecessary, be done.

Between the aircrafts and helicopters of the Russian Armed Forces with a lack of success, the An-148 is in the cathegory of the An-72/74, and the An-140 is in the cathegory of the An-24/26/30/32.

To see where should be the firsts replacements in the Russian Armed Forces fleet, it is necessary to note that there is a good number of models that are out of production (not included in the previous list), but are still in active service in the Russian Armed Forces. It is likely that these models be replaced before. Following the same scheme by weight class we have:

-

Il-86/80
An-22

-

-

Tu-134
Il-18/20/22
An-10/12

-

-

-

-

L-39
Mi-2
An-2

With some older aircraft still in the reserve.

Do not be wrong Garry, the military have not own funding surces, who pay the bills is the Russian government that is also in charge of the solutions for the civil air transport.

Of course the Russian government was cooperation between military and civil requirements, but where things are needed by the military the military version is created and then the company that make the product looks at civilian variants... hense even civilian operated Il-76s have tail gun turrets that sometimes even have guns fitted in the civilian used models.

Sometimes it works the other way but not very often... the Il-96, which is an enlarged version of the Il-86 is going to be used by the Russian military in a tanker version.

There was no plan to create a combined civil military inflight refuelling aircraft because there was never a requirement for a civilian inflight refuelling aircraft, but the Il-96 is a large widebodied airliner that has already been developed... put new engines in it and it would be thoroughly competitive with anything comparable in the west like the Airbus A380 or Boeing 747.

Surely you mean the Mi-38, well, all them are today for sale for civil use.

The Mi-38 too... its greatest competition is the number and performance of the Mi-8 and Mi-17s still in production and service making their introduction not a high priority.

The Mi-34 is actually of more use because the Soviets outsourced light helos to the Warsaw Pact... the Mi-2 was a Soviet design but was not produced in the Soviet Union... just like the L-39 and L-29 trainers were not produced in the Soviet Union.

In earlier models like the Mi-2 and Mi-8, I do not know exactly if they were designed for military purposes only or not. In the case of being designs only to meet military requirements, maybe good luck, or maybe brilliant designs, but if both have been used for civil customers without changes, it is because their designs are meeting their requirements.

They were military first and foremost, but they worked well in civilian use too... in the case of transport helos there is often little to choose between civil and military requirements... both want good payload and good range and low operating costs.

Only it is possible to say this if we consider that all the Russian aircrafts and helicopters offered for civil use in the last 25 years have been a failure. I do not think this is right. We can see cases of relative success as explained. When a design has been good enough, it has been also a success in relative terms.

There is little chance for a Russian design in the last 25 years because its markets have completely changed... the main domestic customer... the Russian military and Russian government have only just started spending money again, and the entire warsaw pact and much of the former soviet republics wouldn't take Russian equipment if it was free because they want to brown nose to NATO or EU or both.

Despite this there are sales of Russian aircraft and sales will now dramatically increase with government purchases of military and civilian models. With these purchases production will start which makes further sales likely as the price will come down with other sales and current production and someone else paying for upgrades and improvements.

Not all the future models of aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles will succeed.

Obviously. But for aircraft that are needed to replace aircraft currently in service that wont remain in service forever but come from what are now hostile foreign countries like the Ukraine for the An-12, An-22, and An-124 then a replacement will be needed, and if accepted will be successful because a few other countries will purchase them too.

These would be the aircrafts and helicopters for non-combat roles that are in production and have been at least a relative success, or are in development and I expect a success (based mostly in the number of orders declared and other details). By weight class:

The An-124 is half Ukrainian and is now a dead end. They will upgrade, but will be working hard on a replacement family of aircraft to replace the An-225, An-124, An-22, and An-12. The An-140 will no longer be bought or produced... in fact they might sell the ones they bought to Iran as an option.

They are using the Il-96 in the tanker role but I doubt they will use it in the military for anything else.

The Il-76s will be replaced by Il-476, as will the tanker and AWACS models.

The Mi-26 will get Russian engines and will likely remain in service for some time.

The An-72 will likely be replaced as soon as possible.

They need to hurry up the production of Russian engines for the Ka-60 and indeed Ka-226T.

All the non-combat aircrafts of the size of the An-72/74 or smaller failed in the last 25 years, except the successful trainers.

Not they did not. Before the Ukraine went retard there was no space or requirement for light transports... An-24, An-26, and An-32 did a very good job and there was no reason to replace them... now there is.

Between the aircrafts and helicopters of the Russian Armed Forces with a lack of success, the An-148 is in the cathegory of the An-72/74, the An-140 is in the cathegory of the An-24/26/30/32, and the Ka-226 is in the weight cathegory of the Mi-Ansat.

The Antonov aircraft have sabotaged themselves... it does not matter whether they are perfect or crap... they will now be replaced.

The Ka-226T will be produced in India with the Russian military buying about 50 and India buying/making about 250 initially... I suspect it will be a success. The more so in Russia when it gets new Russian engines.

GarryB wrote:

All the non-combat aircrafts of the size of the An-72/74 or smaller failed in the last 25 years, except the successful trainers.

Not they did not. Before the Ukraine went retard there was no space or requirement for light transports... An-24, An-26, and An-32 did a very good job and there was no reason to replace them... now there is.

Taking into account that this comment is refered to the new models developed in the last 25 years, no-one of them reached the mentioned level to consider them a relative success. And the limit was generous. It is necessary to remember that these models have been also for sale in international markets, and have been offered for roles that the An-24/26/30/32 covered not strongly, like the civil transport of passengers, but they succeed not.

It is necessary to take into account that the success of every weight class is different. Some of them are significantly more demanded than others. Roughly, the most successful weight classes are the ones that allow to more models to have a relative success, the ones with more models included in the list. Also, the demand of them changes with the time. Some decline, others improve. As example, some years ago it were not trainer aircrafts of the weight class of the Mi-8, but now the Yak-130 succeed, and it is replacing lighter trainer aircrafts (basically the L-39). For some weight class the overall demand may decline until a level where there is not a chance of success for new models.

In overall terms I included in the first list by weight class, the proved successes (at least in relative terms) and the safe bets in the close future. With the time it is possible to see some success more, but surely only a few in the following years, because the strongest models (the included in the list by weight class) will absorb most of the demand of the own and foreign, civil and miliatry markets in the own class in the following years.

I agree, that the Antonovs will be replaced, but there are too many to do it in the short term. Surely the best is to begin by the newest, the best for sale, and the oldest. The newest are the mentioned as unsuccessful An-148 and An-140, that are only a few and seem easily replaceable. The oldest are included in the second list by weight class, and are, the An-10/12, the An-22 and the An-2.

PS: As GarryB commented, some contracts with very recent deliveries made to double the number of units produced of the Ka-226, that would be now in a level of relative success. According to it, I edited some of my previous comments. It leaves the An-148 and the An-140 as the alone non-combat aircrafts or helicopters of the last 25 years, present in the Russian Armed Forces, that reached not at least a relative success.

Taking into account that this comment is refered to the new models developed in the last 25 years, no-one of them reached the mentioned level to consider them a relative success. And the limit was generous. It is necessary to remember that these models have been also for sale in international markets, and have been offered for roles that the An-24/26/30/32 covered not strongly, like the civil transport of passengers, but they succeed not.

That is because the country of origin was not buying any aircraft... if they wont or cant buy them no one else will take the risk.

Now, however, the Russians have money and are spending it to restock their fleet and fill in gaps... and once in full production the prices will go down because it is not needed to fund restarting production so other countries that use similar aircraft will start buying new aircraft to basically do the same thing.

Also, the demand of them changes with the time. Some decline, others improve. As example, some years ago it were not trainer aircrafts of the weight class of the Mi-8, but now the Yak-130 succeed, and it is replacing lighter trainer aircrafts (basically the L-39). For some weight class the overall demand may decline until a level where there is not a chance of success for new models.

Smaller aircraft are less risk because they are cheaper than bigger aircraft and you need to buy them in larger numbers to be viable anyway.

The winner of the competition between MiG-AT and Yak-130 was always going to be a success because the Russian Air Force needed to replace its foreign jet trainers... L-29 and L-39.

Now that it is in production other air forces will look at it rather more favourably because it is in production and will get updates and will be supported.

The future for the MiG-AT is not so bright even though it is not a bad aircraft.

The oldest are included in the second list by weight class, and are, the An-10/12, the An-22 and the An-2.

The replacement for the An-12 is being worked on... I hope the Russians just build the damn thing and then the Indians make a variant that suits their needs just like they did with the Su-30M... it would speed things up a lot.

The An-2 replacement will be harder because it is just a simple and effective aircraft.

The Il-106 or the smallest of the new development family of transports they are planning will replace the An-22 and that also needs a hurry up as the An-22s are getting old... once they have that family design perfected then the An-225 equivalent might be the next priority as the space industry could use some heavy transport... of course a very large air ship could be developed for the role of VSTOL delivery of heavy or outsized goods direct from production place to the place it needs to deliver it to, but that would be some way away.

GarryB, to look at the success or lack of success in relative terms makes that we can not make to the conditions of the market responsible of the relative success or lack of success of the models.

The conditions of the markets have been the same for all the cases, but under them not all the models answered with the same degree of success or lack of success. Some succeed in relative terms and others, not. And there are differences between them that Russia need to find to do the right analysis about what can make successful to a model. Russia needs to go in more deep into the analysis, than the market conditions, to help future designs. I'm sure Russia is doing it, because it is basic management of the research and development. Surely the question is more about if we realize also of it.

Changing of issue, habitually the year of the end of production is a key parameter to see which models can be replaced first as whole models, because it marks the age of the youngest units of a model. It seems right to quote the list by weight class of models that are in service but out of production, including the year of end of the production in every case:

-

Il-86/80 (1997)
An-22 (1975)

-

-

Tu-134 (1989)
Il-18/20/22 (1985)
An-10/12 (1972)

-

-

-

-

L-39 (1999)
Mi-2 (1993)
An-2 (1993)

For replacements in the short-mid term I would expect to see units of the models that are out of production since longer time being replaced by models that are in production or reaching the production in the short-mid term and are safe bets. It basically means to compare both lists by weight class of my previous comment.

What I would expect:

An-10/12 (1972, 65 active and 55 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-214.
An-22 (1975, 5 active and 6 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-96 (with some changes of minor effect on the navigation for the version of civil transport) or by Il-76/78/A50.
Il-18/20/22 (1985, 48 active and 8 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-214 and maybe some unit of the Su-Superjet100.
Tu-134 (1989, 61 active and 107 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-214 and maybe some unit of the Su-Superjet100.

It will take some time to replace all them. I expect the An-22 the first to be totally replaced, because there are only a few. I do not expect the mentioned Il-106 to come fast enough for a replacement of the An-22.

About the replacement of the An-2 I would not rule out a replacement by helicopters. It seems likely to me. As example we can compare the specifications of the An-2 and the Ka-60/62.

For the An-2:

wikipedia wrote:General characteristics

Crew: 1–2
Capacity: 12 passengers
Length: 12.4 m (40 ft 8 in)
Wingspan: ** Upper wing: 18.2 m (59 ft 8 in)
Lower wing: 14.2 m (46 ft 7 in))
Height: 4.1 m (13 ft)
Wing area: 71.52 m² (769.8 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,300 kg (7,300 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (12,000 lb)
Useful load: 2,140 kg (4,700 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Shvetsov ASh-62IR 9-cylinder supercharged radial engine, 750 kW (1,000 hp)

Performance

Maximum speed: 258 km/h (139 kn, 160 mph)
Cruise speed: 190 km/h (100 kn, 120 mph)
Stall speed: ~50 km/h (26 knots, 30 mph)
Range: 845 km (456 nmi, 525 mi)
Service ceiling: 4,500 m (14,750 ft)
Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (700 ft/min)
Power/mass: 0.136 kW/kg (0.083 hp/lb)

For the Ka-60/62:

wikipedia wrote:General characteristics

Crew: 1-2
Capacity:
12-15 passengers (Ka-62)
14 infantry troops or 6 stretchers
Internal 2,000 kg (4,400 lb)
External 2,500 kg (5,500 lb)
Length: 15.60 m (51.2 ft)
Rotor diameter: 13.50 m (44.3 ft)
Height: 4.60 m (15.1 ft)
Disc area: 143.10 m² (1,540.3 sq ft)
Max. takeoff weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Turbomeca Ardiden 3G turboshaft, 1,776 shp (1,324 kW) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 308 km/h (191 mph; 166 kn)
Cruise speed: 290 km/h (180 mph; 160 kn)
Range: 770 km (480 mi; 420 nmi) with main tanks
Service ceiling: 5,700 m (18,700 ft) operational, 3,300 m (10,800 ft) hover

GarryB, to look at the success or lack of success in relative terms makes that we can not make to the conditions of the market responsible of the relative success or lack of success of the models.

You cant ignore the situation... no aircraft can thrive in a market where there is no demand... no matter how good it might be.

It is a reflection of that market, not the aircraft however.

The conditions of the markets have been the same for all the cases, but under them not all the models answered with the same degree of success or lack of success. Some succeed in relative terms and others, not. And there are differences between them that Russia need to find to do the right analysis about what can make successful to a model. Russia needs to go in more deep into the analysis, than the market conditions, to help future designs. I'm sure Russia is doing it, because it is basic management of the research and development. Surely the question is more about if we realize also of it.

The simple fact is that the Ukraine is now an enemy rather than a friend so aircraft from the Ukraine or with links to the Ukraine suddenly need replacement.

That is not to say suddenly their products are bad, it is to say now they need to be replaced and the market conditions mean foreign aircraft designs don't have a chance because the customer wants domestic products and the customer is the Russian military.

The result is not that any old design will be accepted and suddenly become successful... specific performance requirements need to be met and have been part of the design criteria of the new replacement designs.

Some designs are already ready and just need funding to start production, while others need serious design work and investment, but as I said foreign is not acceptable so domestic models are a must so the planning will be careful and measured.

The Ermak designs wont just be replications of the AN-22, An-124, An-225... they will consider the future requirements of the military and civilian organisations... the space industry will want the capacity to move certain large heavy items from production area to launch pad... new designs might make the An-225 useless for the role but a new model aircraft with specific features will be optimised for the role.

The unification of the design of the Ermak programme means that even though only 3-4 of the heavy weight aircraft might be built the fact that 40-50 of the smaller An-124 class aircraft will be built and more for export and several dozen or more in the An-22 class will also be built with standard components but a different number of engines should make it very profitable... a cheap 80 ton capacity transport would sell very well in the current market just looking at C-17 sales despite its enormous costs.

What I would expect:

An-10/12 (1972, 65 active and 55 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-214.

I totally agree there... and the sooner the better.

An-22 (1975, 5 active and 6 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-96 (with some changes of minor effect on the navigation for the version of civil transport) or by Il-76/78/A50.

If the Il-76 in any version including the l-476 could replace the An-22 it already would have.

I suspect the An-22 will be replaced by Il-106 or the smallest Ermak model (two engined).

Il-18/20/22 (1985, 48 active and 8 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-214 and maybe some unit of the Su-Superjet100.
Tu-134 (1989, 61 active and 107 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-214 and maybe some unit of the Su-Superjet100.

Agree.

It will take some time to replace all them. I expect the An-22 the first to be totally replaced, because there are only a few. I do not expect the mentioned Il-106 to come fast enough for a replacement of the An-22.

I can see the An-22 leaving service first but there is no replacement foreseeable as the Il-106 and Ermak twin will take time to get into production.

I personally prefer the Ermak concept as as you say there is not a need for enormous numbers, so a modular design that can be used for other roles (heavy and super heavy) make sense to keep costs down.

About the replacement of the An-2 I would not rule out a replacement by helicopters. It seems likely to me. As example we can compare the specifications of the An-2 and the Ka-60/62:

The An-28 was originally intended as a replacement, but the new Ryashok could be a viable contender. The keys are low cost and rough air strip capability and simple design that can be fixed in the field...

eehnie wrote:
An-22 (1975, 5 active and 6 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-96 (with some changes of minor effect on the navigation for the version of civil transport) or by Il-76/78/A50.

Again, the An-22 will not be replaced by the Il-96 for the reasons explained previously.

GarryB wrote:

GarryB, to look at the success or lack of success in relative terms makes that we can not make to the conditions of the market responsible of the relative success or lack of success of the models.

You cant ignore the situation... no aircraft can thrive in a market where there is no demand... no matter how good it might be.

It is a reflection of that market, not the aircraft however.

It is not to ignore the situation. For a success the question it is not to be good or bad in absolute terms, it is more about to be the best (and the best can be good or can be bad at same time). Good products can be unsuccessful in bad environments, but also good environments, if they are others better in the competence. When we talk about relative success or lack of success we are not saying that the less successful are bad. Maybe bad or maybe godd, and surely they are good aircrafts and helicopters reaching not a relative success, but I said nothing about it.

GarryB wrote:

An-22 (1975, 5 active and 6 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-96 (with some changes of minor effect on the navigation for the version of civil transport) or by Il-76/78/A50.

If the Il-76 in any version including the l-476 could replace the An-22 it already would have.

I suspect the An-22 will be replaced by Il-106 or the smallest Ermak model (two engined).

It will take some time to replace all them. I expect the An-22 the first to be totally replaced, because there are only a few. I do not expect the mentioned Il-106 to come fast enough for a replacement of the An-22.

I can see the An-22 leaving service first but there is no replacement foreseeable as the Il-106 and Ermak twin will take time to get into production.

I personally prefer the Ermak concept as as you say there is not a need for enormous numbers, so a modular design that can be used for other roles (heavy and super heavy) make sense to keep costs down.

The number of An-22 in service was not as low always. The replacement of the model has been done progressively in the last 20 years approximately with about 45 units retired. I expect not that new models can come before the replacement of this aircraft be finished (even 2 of the 6 units in the reserve are today in museums).

If we can talk about a replacement, the aircraft that has been replacing the An-22 has been the Il-76, the alone of the big aircrafts ordered in the last years until very recently. Now some orders of the Il-96 have been done. Maybe not an exact replacement but both aircrafts, the Il-96 and the Il-76, would be the replacement of the An-22 at least in fact.

Il-96? The only aircraft that can replace today an An-22 is the An-124.

wilhelm wrote:

eehnie wrote:
An-22 (1975, 5 active and 6 in the reserve) likely to be replaced by Il-96 (with some changes of minor effect on the navigation for the version of civil transport) or by Il-76/78/A50.

Again, the An-22 will not be replaced by the Il-96 for the reasons explained previously.

In the last 20 years about 45 units of the An-22 have been retired, and in the next 5? the remaining 11 (or 9) units will be retired. In the same period of time the Il-96 and the Il-76 are the alone big aircrafts that have been ordered and delivered.

You can call it like you want, but the fact is the fact.

Not big enough. The An-22 can carry twice the payload of an Il-76. Both have operational capabilities from short dirty runways that the Il-96 has not.
I repeat: the only aircraft like the An-22 (and more) for me is the An-124 (today).