Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

..Il-106 is going to be valuable ..it has two engines..

I doubt it'll have 2 engines while able to lift 80-120Ts.

digitising the design alone would likely take 5 years...

why is it even needed for low rate production? modernizing it means changing a few things, adding new avionics, upgraded/improved engines, & using new materials. 

the An-22 would be worse because they likely don't have the drawings, ..

if nothing else, the FSB can get them. If not, a retired An-22 can be disassembled & drawings made, just like a B-29 was by Tupolev..

..when you move 2,000 VDV peace keepers to some place urgently you often have to move all sorts of heavy gear quickly...

they don't need tanks; BMPs, helos, UAVs, trucks & perhaps small bulldozers/excavators r the biggest vehicles they'll have on those missions. 

Tsavo Lion wrote:

the An-22 would be worse because they likely don't have the drawings, ..

if nothing else, the FSB can get them. If not, a retired An-22 can be disassembled & drawings made, just like a B-29 was by Tupolev.

And how on earth would this be faster than finishing the design of the il106, developing testing it and organizing production?

In your case there is even a step more, the reverse engineering bit.
Anyway, even if they had the An22 drawings now, they  could not go straight for production. All the requirements must be fully revaluated and checked, and most of the internal systems are obsolete and in most cases not anymore in production since about 40 years.

And it would have to pass all the certification tests and procedures anew (unless they want to keep it as an experimental prototype not allowed to fly above cities and not allowed to land in most airports). Definitely it is not worth for a few planes.

Furthermore a modern il-106 (or equivalent) will be very interesting for many countries, and a civilian version could also be done (Volga Dnepr would be for sure interested).

The ideal would have probably been making a 80-90 tons transport plane with a cargo hold width between 5 and 6 metres and powered by two PD35 engines, and a Slon with a wider and longer cargo hold and increased payload (compared to the An124) and range powered by 4 PD35 engines.

Moreover while waiting for the large 35 tons takeoff thrust engines and the finished development of the new project build additional An-124.

It is actually possible that this is exactly what Russia is going to do, except that the name will not be An-124.
The planned payload, cargo hold size and engine thrust of the "revised" il-106 are higher than the original project and basically the se as the An-124. Now, if the NK23D engines will be ready in the next 2 years this could be the solution for the present, while the other two projects (powered by the PD35) can be introduced starting from 2028 (probably around the same time that the twin engined widebody derived from the il96 will be ready).

Moreover while waiting for the large 35 tons takeoff thrust engines and the finished development of the new project build additional An-124.
It is actually possible that this is exactly what Russia is going to do, except that the name will not be An-124.

the latest I heard & already posted is: they r mulling to modernize/cannibalize those in storage &/ buy some from civ. operators as those have more airframe hours left. They need to produce dozens of IL-476/78s that r needed more on that same plant. This damaged plane could now probably be bought & repaired by the VKS for a lot less than it's worth: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAcaF5doFbA

IMO, some An-12s could also be modified for the tanker role, like the C-130s were. They could refuel helos/UAVs/tiltrotors &/ other An-12s or medium/small planes like mil. IL-112/114s.

I doubt it'll have 2 engines while able to lift 80-120Ts.

Two PD-35 engines would give it 70 tons of thrust.

The An-124 originally carried 120 tons with four 24 ton thrust engines, the An-225 has 6 x 24 ton thrust engines and can carry 250 ton payloads.

The AN -124 has 96 tons thrust, the An-225 has 144 tons thrust.

The Il-106 with 70 tons thrust should easily be able to take 80 tons and with fuel off loaded which it will be designed for 110 tons is the design spec.

With four PD-35s the Slon will have 140 tons of thrust... just 4 tons less than the An-225... of course it will also have two less engines as well which means less weight and drag.

why is it even needed for low rate production?

Because you will be making it out of new materials with new parts with different size on new production equipment... you need to get the design right... hand making them off printed plans is not really an option... the machines that make the parts need digital designs they can't read printed plans...

if nothing else, the FSB can get them. If not, a retired An-22 can be disassembled & drawings made, just like a B-29 was by Tupolev..

Copying an existing example is a nightmare and only a very last resort... plans include information on the material type and hardness of the parts... winging it or guessing leads to issues like Chinese copies of German diesel engines.... you have problems with the wrong materials being used and shattering or wearing out very fast because it is the wrong hardness or the wrong brittleness...

A brand new design would probably be easier because all the calculations have already been made...

they don't need tanks; BMPs, helos, UAVs, trucks & perhaps small bulldozers/excavators r the biggest vehicles they'll have on those missions.

Doesn't matter... an An-124 that can carry 120-150 tons of stuff in one flight is still going to be more use than 3 Il-76s able to take 120 tons, but all their equipment and vehicles are designed to go by Il-76 or Il-76 based aircraft so it all fits... it is just a question of how many aircraft and how many trips they need to take.
The extra width in larger aircraft likely can't be used... the extra half metre or metre or two doesn't allow armour to be carried side by side the difference is not that much...

Once they get Il-106s in service they can redesign their new gear and pallets and vehicles to fit the larger width and get more packed into the bigger spaces, but for now they could use AN-124s anyway.

Furthermore a modern il-106 (or equivalent) will be very interesting for many countries, and a civilian version could also be done (Volga Dnepr would be for sure interested).

But orders of raised from the dead An-22s would cut into export orders for new build Il-106s... which will be quicker and easier and faster to make...

The ideal would have probably been making a 80-90 tons transport plane with a cargo hold width between 5 and 6 metres and powered by two PD35 engines, and a Slon with a wider and longer cargo hold and increased payload (compared to the An124) and range powered by 4 PD35 engines.

Moreover while waiting for the large 35 tons takeoff thrust engines and the finished development of the new project build additional An-124.

Which is the simplest and fastest and most practical solution which is also what they appear to be doing...

the latest I heard & already posted is: they r mulling to modernize/cannibalize those in storage &/ buy some from civ. operators as those have more airframe hours left.

If it was desperate they could build brand new An-124s if they wanted to.... but they clearly don't want to spend that sort of money, which means AN-22s are not even nearly any sort of option... what the lack is that size engine, which is being worked on.

I suspect what will happen is that they will just have a minor shortage of bigger transport aircraft till the new engines are ready and their new planes start entering service.

IMO, some An-12 s could also be modified for the tanker role, like the C-130s were .

The An-12s are old and worn out and about to be replaced.... creating new versions of them now just makes no sense... make some extra Il-276s and develop them as tankers for refuelling front line aircraft... take advantage of its jet engines and higher speed and use it for refuelling Su-25s over the front line at 10,000m... out of range of ground fire...

The problem is that it will only become a matter of time before countries start fitting air to air weapons to their drones to shoot down certain air targets like enemy drones or AWACS or JSTARS or inflight refuelling aircraft and troop transports.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Moreover while waiting for the large 35 tons takeoff thrust engines and the finished development of the new project build additional An-124.
It is actually possible that this is exactly what Russia is going to do, except that the name will not be An-124.

the latest I heard & already posted is: they r mulling to modernize/cannibalize those in storage &/ buy some from civ. operators as those have more airframe hours left. They need to produce dozens of IL-476/78s that r needed more on that same plant. This damaged plane could now probably be bought & repaired by the VKS for a lot less than it's worth: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAcaF5doFbA

I though they could organize different production lines for il-76 and il-106 /An-124 in Aviastar (Ulyanovsk).

It is quite a big complex, anyway.
Afterall, in Konsomolsk they produce at the same time Su35 and superjet 100 and in Irkutsk they are producing MC-21 and Su30 SM.

About that An-124, probably it could be a good idea, but it belongs to Volga-Dnepr, if they decide to keep it and restore it the russian air force cannot do anything about it (since it is not war time)

I also do not know if there are differences between the An-124 made for civilian customers and the military ones.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

IMO, some An-12s could also be modified for the tanker role, like the C-130s were. They could refuel helos/UAVs/tiltrotors &/ other An-12s or medium/small planes like mil. IL-112/114s.

An-12BZ-1 and An-12BZ-2 are versions of the An-12 aircraft for testing the in-flight refueling system: the first is equipped with a system for receiving fuel, the second is a refueling aircraft. Retrofitting of a serial aircraft is carried out by installing a receiver boom and an additional fuel line connecting the boom with a centralized refueling system - for the aircraft being refueled; an outboard refueling unit and an additional fuel tank with pumps and pipelines - for a tanker aircraft.

Such modernization provides an increase in the flight range with a load of 20 tons to 3800 km, and from 7 tons to 6900 km. In 1969 a preliminary design was completed.

http://www.airwar.ru/other/shawrov/htmls/glava01.html

The an12 are at their limit of utilisation.
It does not make any sense.

Maybe China could be interested for their Y8 and Y9 (modernised an12 copy). Definitely not Russia.

If Russia need a refueling tanker with lower capacity than the il-76 the fastest and easiest way would be to base one on the tu204/Tu214.

And later, if they want one with more rough landing capabilities one of the il276.

Personally I would dream to see one of made out from the Yak-44...

The Slon seems like a wonderful alternative to the An-225. It would guzzle less fuel and have the same payload.

it'll have 170Ts payload vs. 250Ts on An-225.

The an12 are at their limit of utilization.

The have ~ 62 active & 106 inactive An-12s. Many r special mission, not cargo variants that have more hours left in them than the rest. It's still would be less costly to modify some of them as a stop gap, if need be. 

kvs wrote:The Slon seems like a wonderful alternative to the An-225.   It would guzzle less fuel and have the same payload.
Russia needs a few such aircraft for the inevitable outlier needs which always occur.   This aircraft would also
have world demand even if Uncle Swine-shit imposed his imperial sanctions.

The PD-14 and PD-12V are entering service as we speak.  So the base for the PD-35 and PD-8 his there and those
variants will appear in a few years.   Most of that time will be spent on testing.   The engineering is going to be
much faster than with the initial PD-14 model.  

True. The good thing about the Slon is that it will be capable of actually replacing the An-124 very advantageously both for military and civilian uses, thanks to the PD-35

I believe one of the cause of doubts has been also the different naming and the lack of clarity from official communications.

As an example I remember the names Yermak and PAK-TA (or PAK-VTA) for the family of transport aircraft  (with payloads of 80 - 160 - 240 tons, or in other announcements instead 80 -120 - 160 tons).

Then came the reuse of the il106 and later even the Slon, followed by the oval shape proposal for the fuselage.

Anyway, checking a few articles from 3 and 4 years ago it looks like they were talking about an aircraft with around 80 tons payload and a 6 meters wide cargo hold (the same as the original il-106 project) and that it could have been realized in both the 4 engine version (powered by the 17.6 tons takeoff thrust PS-90A1 (the same engine as in the Il-96-400M)) and later (after the mid/late 2020s) in the 2 engine version (powered by 2 PD35).


Then there were also discussions about restarting production of the An-124 without the Ukraine, and after Antonov protested, they mention that the new il106 will have 4 engines with 23/24 tons of takeoff thrust (the same as the an124) and it will be able to carry up to 120 tons and have exactly the same cargo hold width and lenght as the an124...

Possibly the last part was only to generate confusion, a sort of maskirovka?

And finally, in the past they announced that
the baseline PD-35 will serve as the foundation for a family of engines with a thrust ranging from 25 to 50 tonnes.

50 tons takeoff thrust would be the same as the engines of the B777.
If this would become reality,  then there would be no need to do a 6 engine version of the Slon, they could just simply do the first one with 4 PD35 and then in the future do an enlarged version with 4 PD50!

https://iz.ru/671706/2017-11-16/istochnik-rasskazal-o-vozmozhnostiakh-transportnogo-samoleta-budushchego

The newest cargo aircraft being developed in Russia within the framework of the PAK TA theme (a promising aviation complex for transport aviation) should have a carrying capacity of about 80 tons. Its difference from the American C-17 Globemaster aircraft with a similar load will be an improved layout, which increases the efficiency of using the internal volumes of the aircraft. A source in the defense industry reported this to the iz.ru portal.
“We have to think not only about the military, but also about the commercial use of the new machine. The cost of such machines today is too high to be developed exclusively for military use. The load indicator of 80 tons with more efficient use of internal volumes can be considered optimal, taking into account the needs of carriers, ”said the interlocutor of the editorial office.

Development of the PAK TA complex, within which a new family of heavy transport aircraft is being created, began in the first half of the 2010s. It is expected that the aircraft will be tested by the middle of the next decade, and in the future will replace the Il-76 type aircraft in the Air Force. In 2016, a number of media outlets reported that the design of the new aircraft was based on the Il-106 project , which was not implemented due to the collapse of the USSR. Within the framework of this project, it was supposed to create an aircraft with a carrying capacity of 80-100 tons, with a cargo compartment 6 meters wide, allowing two-row placement of equipment.

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=423213&lang=RU

promising aviation complex of the Military Transport Aviation will be created on the basis of modern technical solutions - General Director of OJSC "IL"

08/23/2016 11:35:12 AM

Moscow. August 23
INTERFAX-AVN - OJSC Il (part of the UAC) has begun to develop a promising aviation complex of the Military Transport Aviation (PAK VTA), the general director of the company Sergei Velmozhkin said in an interview with Interfax-AVN on Tuesday. Now, when working out solutions for SVTS (medium military transport aircraft), we have a window of opportunity to think and make an aircraft based on modern technical solutions. We will analyze the existing projects, research and development work on aerodynamics, strength and control systems, "Velmozhkin said.
According to him, much will depend on the choice of the power plant. "The best option may be the new PD-23 engine, which has been launched today as an experimental design. In this case, we can talk about the VTA PAK with a payload of 100 tons. If the customer insists on an 80-ton vehicle, then will use PS-90A1 ", said the general director of the Ilyushin Aviation Complex.
 He noted that there are already proposals to increase the percentage of composite materials in PAK VTA. "They are working on these issues all over the world, since composites allow reducing the weight of the aircraft, improving aerodynamic and flight characteristics. Therefore, we will look for technical solutions in terms of the use of new materials," Velmozhkin said.

https://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/defense-security-exhibitions-news/air-show-2016/airshow-china-2016/3059-airshow-china-russia-to-begin-il-106-airlifter-design-phase-within-three-years.html

The Il-106 is likely to have PD-14 or PS-90A engines. "The enhanced power engine PD-35 (on the basis of PD-14 gas generator) will appear not earlier than the middle of the 2020s. It will make the Il-106 a two-engine aircraft with considerably increased cost effectiveness," he added.

The Il-106 payload is expected to be 80-100 tons.

I believe one of the cause of doubts has been also the different naming and the lack of clarity from official communications.

they been making & changing plans all the time, & that's why I have to repeat my "I will believe it when I see it" mantra.

Tsavo Lion wrote:I believe one of the cause of doubts has been also the different naming and the lack of clarity from official communications.
they been making & changing plans all the time, & that's why I have to repeat my "I will believe it when I see it" mantra.

Yet you believe the broke ass Ukrainians who cant even get an existing plane off the ground that they will be making new transport planes for Turkey?

Lol

They didn't make the Y-8/9/20s for PRC; Turkey may also make An-188s by herself with Ukrainian design & engineering help.

Tsavo Lion wrote:They didn't make the Y-8/9/20s for PRC; Turkey may also make An-188s by herself with Ukrainian design & engineering help.

You cna't just decide to buy a design and produce a plane from scratch.

They would need at least 20 years to have an industry capable of building a plane and it would a pretty simple one with no contracts for export which is needed to keep alive such industry.

The way you describe it, it would be just assembly with parts coming from pretty much everywhere like they does for their drones.

Even Russia which has all the soviet aerospace industry used mostly foreign parts for their first "russian" plane which was the SSJ100.

Ukraine can't help. They have no more engineers capable of making planes. They are no more advanced than Turkey.

Turkish Aerospace Industries  already builds aircraft, & if they want to make their own transports, this project will be a good way to start.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Turkish Aerospace Industries  already builds aircraft, & if they want to make their own transports, this project will be a good way to start.

Jet trainers have nothing to fo with a cargo or civilian plane that Antonov produces.

Jet trainers are the simplest aircraft to make. Almost any developed country can make it.

I though they could organize different production lines for il-76 and il-106 /An-124 in Aviastar (Ulyanovsk).

Once Il-106 is in production would they need to keep An-124 production capacity?

If the plan is to cannibalise engines from older An-124s then new An-124s are not going to be of much use... I would think production for Il-476 and variants for A-100 etc, and change from An-124 to Il-106 production and start looking at upgrading existing fleet of An-124s including those in storage with improved engines... perhaps PD-24 or something, while getting Slon ready for testing and service.

The Slon seems like a wonderful alternative to the An-225. It would guzzle less fuel and have the same payload.
Russia needs a few such aircraft for the inevitable outlier needs which always occur. This aircraft would also
have world demand even if Uncle Swine-shit imposed his imperial sanctions.

The Russian space industry needs large outsized loads carried around the place so two or three for them would be useful... I would think a version with an H tail so loads on its back don't effect the vertical stabilisers should be a simple modification.

Generally the payloads carried were either the Buran or empty large fuel tanks.... none of which weighed anything like 250 tons... they were just too big and awkward to fit inside any existing aircraft in one piece...

it'll have 170Ts payload vs. 250Ts on An-225.

The Buran weighs about 120 tons on the Energyia, and the huge fuel tanks and odd sized external loads were carried by the VMT... a converted bomber whose payload capacity is tiny in comparison to the Slon.

The have ~ 62 active & 106 inactive An-12s . Many r special mission, not cargo variants that have more hours left in them than the rest. It's still would be less costly to modify some of them as a stop gap, if need be.

Makes more sense to produce new aircraft that keep old aircraft around...

50 tons takeoff thrust would be the same as the engines of the B777.
If this would become reality, then there would be no need to do a 6 engine version of the Slon, they could just simply do the first one with 4 PD35 and then in the future do an enlarged version with 4 PD50!

To carry external loads it just needs a suitable tail structure so turbulence going over the object on the aircrafts back does not make the vertical stabiliser ineffective.

The VMT carried payloads of up to about 15 tons... the outsized loads being carried are not actually heavy... the heaviest would be an empty Buran sized craft which might be 60-70 tons.... that is without a 30 ton payload and perhaps 10-20 tons of fuel...

I wonder if a four x PD-50 monster would ever be built.

Probably a commercial airliner perhaps with long flight range... even then they would use the extra power of the engines to only fit two I suspect.

Turkey may also make An-188s by herself with Ukrainian design & engineering help.

The pain in the ass the Ukraine has been with Russia for the last 30 odd years is public record... why would Turkey put itself through that sort of rubbish for the sake of a dozen planes... doesn't make sense.

& if they want to make their own transports, this project will be a good way to start.

No it wouldn't.

It would be cheaper to approach the Chinese or Russians and create a joint venture where they cooperate and develop products with built in markets for their products...

What EU country will buy a Ukrainian plane... no matter who makes it?

GarryB wrote:

I though they could organize different production lines for il-76 and il-106 /An-124 in Aviastar (Ulyanovsk).

Once Il-106 is in production would they need to keep An-124 production capacity?

If the plan is to cannibalise engines from older An-124s then new An-124s are not going to be of much use... I would think production for Il-476 and variants for A-100 etc, and change from An-124 to Il-106 production and start looking at upgrading existing fleet of An-124s including those in storage with improved engines... perhaps PD-24 or something, while getting Slon ready for testing and service.

I meant that it is not clear if they plan to start first with a updated version of the original il-106 project, with the same hold size and payload as in the preliminary design and powered (at least initially) by 4 PS-90A1 engines, or if they want to do a modernised An-124 under an Ilyushin name, powered by 4 NK23D (when and if they are ready).

For that reason I wrote il-106/An-124.

The important point is that the production of either airplane in Ulyanovsk should not compromise the production of il76.

Anyway, already the availability of a 80 tons payload il106 with 6 m wide cargo hold will make it the largest military cargo in production worldwide, and remove a lot of workload from the existing An-124.

Actually this should be probably the best initial option, as the PS-90A1 engines exists and are used also on the Il96-400M, so it would not be delayed by engines or other equipment availability. The only "annoying" part is to design and theb produce two different wings, one with 4 engines for the present and one with 2 PD35 for late 2020s

Jet trainers have nothing to fo with a cargo or civilian plane that Antonov produces.

Prior to 1943, the USSR used gliders & converted bombers to haul cargo before it produced C-47-derived Li-2s under license, which led to IL-12/14/18/62/86/96s. China used Antonov's help to design & produce her Y-8/9/20s. Turkey has to start somewhere.

 why would Turkey put itself through that sort of rubbish for the sake of a dozen planes... What EU country will buy a Ukrainian plane... no matter who makes it?

 they may need more, & also export them to non-EU nations.

It would be cheaper to approach the Chinese or Russians and create a joint venture where they cooperate and develop products with built in markets for their products...

Turkey will want to earn $ independently of them, so they won't undermine their own products by creating a competitor. Besides, Ukraine will offer a better deal- like they did with ex-Varyag, CMs & other arms they sold around the world.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

It would be cheaper to approach the Chinese or Russians and create a joint venture where they cooperate and develop products with built in markets for their products...

Turkey will want to earn $ independently of them, so they won't undermine their own products by creating a competitor. Besides, Ukraine will offer a better deal- like they did with ex-Varyag, CMs & other arms they sold around the world.

Ukraine and Turkey together are not able to produce an airplane. They can maybe produce the fuselage and the wings. That is all. Motor sich is not able to produce modern engines, and soon there is the risk it will disappear completely.
Practically all of the parts for the turkish UAVs are imported. It is like saying that sweden is able to build a modern jet (Saab gripen). It is not. SAAB is merely an integrator.

So if turkey and or ukraine want to build an airplane (of any kind) they need to import parts from either US, China, Russia, or from a bunch of EU nations.

They cannot (and will not for a long time) build anything independently.

Anyway we discussed this to death in the other thread (Ukrainian aviation industry) ... please let's stay in topic...

Prior to 1943, the USSR used gliders & converted bombers to haul cargo before it produced C-47-derived Li-2s under license, which led to IL-12/14/18/62/86/96s. China used Antonov's help to design & produce her Y-8/9/20s. Turkey has to start somewhere

Yeah but chinese aircraft industry hasn't evolved that much since then.

Turkey may likely succeed and would succeed but the cost and all the things that it would involved are not worth producing some 20 aircraft.

They can jjst buy from a foreign country. Brazil is also proposing planes of all sort.

Yeah but chinese aircraft industry hasn't evolved that much since then.

Turkey will be buying foreign made & developing her own aircraft just like USSR & the PRC did; putting all eggs in 1 basket may be cheaper but more risky. Thus, it's worth investing in its own industry instead of supporting some1 else's.

Isos wrote:

Prior to 1943, the USSR used gliders & converted bombers to haul cargo before it produced C-47-derived Li-2s under license, which led to IL-12/14/18/62/86/96s. China used Antonov's help to design & produce her Y-8/9/20s. Turkey has to start somewhere

Yeah but chinese aircraft industry hasn't evolved that much since then.

Turkey may likely succeed and would succeed but the cost and all the things that it would involved are not worth producing some 20 aircraft.

They can jjst buy from a foreign country. Brazil is also proposing planes of all sort.

Yes but also Brazil is only producing Fuselage, wings and Landing Gears. All the other components are imported.

In the wikipedia page of the KC390 is written

Major subcontractors include Aero Vodochody for the rear fuselage section,[32] Rockwell Collins for the avionics,[33] BAE Systems for the fly-by-wire primary flight control system,[34] ELEB for the landing gear,[35] and Rockwell Collins for the cargo handling and aerial delivery system.[36] International Aero Engines (IAE) supplies the V2500-E5 turbofans, its first military application.[37] Fábrica Argentina de Aviones supplies the tail cone, cargo door and landing gear doors.[38]

ELEB (controlled by Embraer) is the only one among the major subcontractors for that aircraft that is Brasilian.

US has probably the largest share (in cost percentage) of the parts, as Rockwell Collins is American and pratt&withney controls 50% of IAE, the joint venture that supplies the engine.

So, if they should fall from american grace, they may have problems in completing additional aircrafts.

Basically getting parts from US or from their unofficial colonies for your airplanes may gave you access to their market, but will block your sales to other countries not belonging to the US country club. Furthermore, if the aircraft you are trying to build is a potential concurrent to something produced by the US, France, Germany or the UK (Great Britain, not the ukraine ;p) the actual chances you'll be allowed to export it are very low.

Furthermore, if the aircraft you are trying to build is a potential concurrent to something produced by the US, France, Germany or the UK (Great Britain, not the ukraine ;p) the actual chances you'll be allowed to export it are very low.

The KC390 competes with the C-130J, & so far no problems for future sales.