Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Share
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1683
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:00 pm

    eehnie wrote:The man is even unable of exposing the words of others like they are. It is obvious his low understanding hability and his wish of distorting the words of others to hide its own inhability. Always obsesed with the less modern part of the Russian arsenals, always talking about weird options like if Russia would be Mali, and unable to see how Russia moves forward

    Distorting words? I think that's you eehnie I have Never stated or compared Russia to Mali. And have never stated or put across that can't or how it moves forward. I am obsessed with less modern arsenals and weird options? That's very rich coming from you who talks about old arsenals and is COMPLETELY obsessed decommissioning and what YOU believe is exhausted and what is likely to be exhausted and what is useless in posts that almost take the whole page up this is FACT. I've commentsed on many things eehnie and most of my threads in relation to older equipment are well over a year old and you had no problems in contributing to the thread and making posts. So before you start to talk out of your ass take a closer look at yourself. Copying and pasting crap from websites that takes up most of the page nobody reads the crap. I ask questions looking for answers or views or contribute on areas I know. You however disagree with everyone and believe everything you put on this forum is gospel you can't never admit when your wrong nor can take advice or views from ex servicemen as credible information as was proven in the 120mm mortar discussion. Now I know why some have you on ignore. Your not an expert on everything eehnie it's about time you realised that.
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1683
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:31 pm

    Eehnie you stated "You are ignoring the main weakness of the concept: The lack of sales. The lack of interest and orders of the customers."

    Your ignoring what everyone has been saying nobody mentioned sales or stated that it would see the same sales as An -2 but that the aircraft was useful and that a replacement was need so who is doing the ignoring?

    As for training as I've already stated training starts off using small aircraft before moving up onto bigger aircraft with more troops being involved a novice jumper doesn't just get chucked into a large exercise being thrown out of a hercules along with 100's of others in the sky. In the UK they start of jumping out of a Britten-Norman Defender a few times before moving onto a hercules. Please observe this point.

    Theres already work being done on the building of the facility to produce the TVS 2DTS and they expect 200 to be built this was signed off by various Russian ministries and Russian helicopter holding company. I have never stated it will see the same sales as An -2 but I do see the benefits of having such an aircraft.

    As far as I am aware no An-2 was shot down in Ukraine. But I do know that it has a reduced signature and that the north Koreans reduced it further by replacing parts with wood lol. Although I ain't sure how effective it was.

    As many have said it's main strengths are cheap to buy maintain and operate as well being able to take off and land on rough ground. I think this topic has been talked to death now with you being the only one to think it's a useless design and concept and An-2 wasn't good. Everyone else thinks different. And I know that you will never accept these views of others or be swayed to change your mind. That's fine we can wait and see what happens to the TVS 2DTS as I've said before time will tell. Let's all agree to disagree I think this is a reasonable compromise to the debate because we all seem to be saying and covering the same points over and over again. Do you at least agree with that?
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2512
    Points : 2529
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  eehnie on Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:13 am

    Do you see how you distort the words? I said not you compared Russia to Mali. I said that with your obsession of talking about weird update options for really old material you talk about Russia like if it would be Mali.

    The process of decommissioning armament and auxiliary material is real and is deep, as we can see in news like this.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4072p50-older-warfare-performance-and-short-mid-term-decomissions#228905

    franco wrote:MOSCOW, July 4 (Itar-Tass) - RIA Novosti. The number of models of weapons and military equipment decreased in the Armed Forces of Russia from 2014 from 3,900 to 2,600 items, follows from the materials of the Book of Records of the Armed Forces, published on Wednesday on the website of the Ministry of Defense.

    "The type of weapons, military and special equipment of the Armed Forces developed in 2014 made it possible to reduce the branded composition of the weapons, military and special equipment fleet from 3.9 to 2.6 thousand samples," reads the materials of the RF Armed Forces Records Book.

    It is noted that such a reduction made it possible to reduce the costs of maintenance of machinery.

    A reduction of the composition of the Russian arsenals fromm 3900 to 2600 different items, means the total decommission of 1300 items since 2014. Just 1/3 of them, a 33.333%. And some items more will follow in the short-term and the mid-term.

    This is real, and something that you still assumed not. Many of the weapons (and their ammunition) for which you are finding always weird options are totally exhausted at this point in the arsenals of Russia. You will need to propose them to countries like Mali.

    In the refered to the aircrafts, you can prepare yourself for the total decommission in the following years of the Be-6/12, Mi-6/10/22, An-22, L-39, An-2 and surely something else of foreign origin. Do not blame me.

    If you see some of these aircrafts present in the Russian Armed Forces after the end of 2025, you will be able to say I was wrong on something.
    If you see some of the aircrafts marked in blue or purble in the list, in which Im including the TVS-2DTS, surpassing 50 units produced completed, you will be able to say I was wrong on something.
    If you see the Russian production of the L-410 to surpass 50 units produced completed, you will be able to say that I was wrong on something.
    If you see the Diamond DAt2 or other of the aircrafts marked in blue in the previous list, officially adopted and entering the Russian Armed Forces you will be able to say that I was wrong on something.
    And you will have also more opportunities for land and sea based material.

    But is unlikely you will find big mistakes in my words, because unlike you I know a little of what Im talking about. You has been insulting me in several comments, do not expect kind words from me.
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1683
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:54 am

    eehnie wrote:Do you see how you distort the words? I said not you compared Russia to Mali. I said that with your obsession of talking about weird update options for really old material you talk about Russia like if it would be Mali.

    The process of decommissioning armament and auxiliary material is real and is deep, as we can see in news like this.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4072p50-older-warfare-performance-and-short-mid-term-decomissions#228905

    franco wrote:MOSCOW, July 4 (Itar-Tass) - RIA Novosti. The number of models of weapons and military equipment decreased in the Armed Forces of Russia from 2014 from 3,900 to 2,600 items, follows from the materials of the Book of Records of the Armed Forces, published on Wednesday on the website of the Ministry of Defense.

    "The type of weapons, military and special equipment of the Armed Forces developed in 2014 made it possible to reduce the branded composition of the weapons, military and special equipment fleet from 3.9 to 2.6 thousand samples," reads the materials of the RF Armed Forces Records Book.

    It is noted that such a reduction made it possible to reduce the costs of maintenance of machinery.

    A reduction of the composition of the Russian arsenals fromm 3900 to 2600 different items, means the total decommission of 1300 items since 2014. Just 1/3 of them, a 33.333%. And some items more will follow in the short-term and the mid-term.

    This is real, and something that you still assumed not. Many of the weapons (and their ammunition) for which you are finding always weird options are totally exhausted at this point in the arsenals of Russia. You will need to propose them to countries like Mali.

    In the refered to the aircrafts, you can prepare yourself for the total decommission in the following years of the Be-6/12, Mi-6/10/22, An-22, L-39, An-2 and surely something else of foreign origin. Do not blame me.

    If you see some of these aircrafts present in the Russian Armed Forces after the end of 2025, you will be able to say I was wrong on something.
    If you see some of the aircrafts marked in blue or purble in the list, in which Im including the TVS-2DTS, surpassing 50 units produced completed, you will be able to say I was wrong on something.
    If you see the Russian production of the L-410 to surpass 50 units produced completed, you will be able to say that I was wrong on something.
    If you see the Diamond DAt2 or other of the aircrafts marked in blue in the previous list, officially adopted and entering the Russian Armed Forces you will be able to say that I was wrong on something.
    And you will have also more opportunities for land and sea based material.

    But is unlikely you will find big mistakes in my words, because unlike you I know a little of what Im talking about. You has been insulting me in several comments, do not expect kind words from me.

    Firstly I don't have an obsession something I've clearly pointed out and you fail to see my other posts because that's how you are. Also you clearly have an obsession with decommissioning that's a fact an obsession doesn't have to be fake or make believe you know. And what you completely fail to see in my posts is that they are not always directed at the Russian Armed Forces but rather for export markets or a solution for other countries. And as for insults it's as if you have done any insults to others. It's also fact that you clog up threads with massive copy and paste posts which almost take up the whole page. And I never questioned decommissioning on any of the aircrafts mentioned so you obviously have that wrong on my opinions. I was questioning the usefulness of the An-2 and production of the TVS 2DTS nothing else. I also posted another post of which you failed to observe and digest. But it's typical with people who like to see them as an expert on everything. You mentioned you know a little bit about the subject then that would imply that you don't know everything eehnie but yet you refuse to accept other people's knowledge on the subject just like the mortar debate you failed to accept the advice of ex servicemen and yet you have avoided to mention that in your posts back at me but that exactly what you do. You can't admit when your wrong and you can't accept that someone knows more about the subject than you. Nobody on this forum is an expert on everything. Majority of the time it's personal views and information obtained from the Internet which isn't always 100% credible we can all read up things on the Internet but its doesnt make us experts and the information we read might not even be 100% factual , small minority actually have military experience on here. Can I ask do you have any military experience? (Genuine question)

    This forum is about sharing views, news, information and experience and just you or I or anyone else posts something doesn't make it gospel. We have to accept people's experiences who actually have done military service. Your entitled to your view as am I as well as others are but our views are less credible than people's experiences and comments made from official sources.


    So as for the TVS 2DTS and the comments made by Rostec that's currently what I am going with that they state 200 will be made and that they are building production facilities and that it was signed off my various ministries and Russian helicopter holding company I personally think there might be a delay as there normally is and with sanctions. But like I said we will see. As for the L410 I can't see anymore being produced and I never expected anymore either. I already had a discussion on the diamond sometime back. As for decommissioning we have both talked about it and most of it is already out of service and likely being cannibalised for other countries still using the equipment as well scrapping but I won't go into detail. And also on my posts from well over a year or two on older systems you as I pointed out were quite happy to contribute to the thread so you too are guilty of being interested enough to contribute to the subject. As for weird upgrades these weren't directed as russian use but for export to get rid of older systems and make money as well as suggestions for other countries Cuba has done a lot of this north Korea as well syria has also done a few things as well. But the most outdated stuff should be scrapped or museum pieces or private collector's but I've also talked about that as well or have you forgotten lol.

    Anyway enough said on the subject and you didn't digest my other post or accept what said this was a conclusion to the debate with a compromise. But you didn't want that's fine.
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2512
    Points : 2529
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  eehnie on Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:58 pm


    Still unable to see that if some item is totally exhausted Russia, and is out of production since decades, there is nothing to export.

    Better if you apply your forum behaviour lessons to yourself, before to insult me again.
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1683
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:37 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Still unable to see that if some item is totally exhausted Russia, and is out of production since decades, there is nothing to export.

    Better if you apply your forum behaviour lessons to yourself, before to insult me again.

    Eehnie you just back up everything I've said about you. That you fail to answer questions fail to accept when you're wrong fail to see your the obsessed one. You always fail accept advice of those who know. I however don't act like this and it's very clear that I don't.  You still fail to see reason and think your right 100% all the time when in FACT your not. It's fine keep lying to yourself it doesn't bother me that you live a deluded life on here. Everything I've said about you is true and factual and everyone can see it. You fail to compromise which is another clear indication of your superior complex. So eehnie why won't you answer the simple questions? ???????

    Because you know that the true answers are not what you care to admit. You answer what you want and fail to answer or acknowledge other questions this is very clear in your posts
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2512
    Points : 2529
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  eehnie on Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:38 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Still unable to see that if some item is totally exhausted Russia, and is out of production since decades, there is nothing to export.

    Better if you apply your forum behaviour lessons to yourself, before to insult me again.

    Eehnie you just back up everything I've said about you. That you fail to answer questions fail to accept when you're wrong fail to see your the obsessed one. You always fail accept advice of those who know. I however don't act like this and it's very clear that I don't.  You still fail to see reason and think your right 100% all the time when in FACT your not. It's fine keep lying to yourself it doesn't bother me that you live a deluded life on here. Everything I've said about you is true and factual and everyone can see it. You fail to compromise which is another clear indication of your superior complex. So eehnie why won't you answer the simple questions? ???????

    Because you know that the true answers are not what you care to admit. You answer what you want and fail to answer or acknowledge other questions this is very clear in your posts

    You are ridiculizing yourself until limits difficul to reach.

    You are really good showing your outstanding ignorance.

    You only have been cheerleading wrong arguments, and you pretend to force me to do the same.

    Better if you go to study something.
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1683
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:46 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Still unable to see that if some item is totally exhausted Russia, and is out of production since decades, there is nothing to export.

    Better if you apply your forum behaviour lessons to yourself, before to insult me again.



    Eehnie it's you who is the ignorant one you clearly display this all the time not me. You completely fail to answer the simplest of questions but rather be selective if what you see. You continue to ignore ex servicemens advice and experienceS and believe that youran expert in everything you obviously have a superior complex which goes as far as blocking out everyone else's advice and makes you to not see or accept compromises and resolutions which you have displayed on this thread many times. Quite frankly it's becoming boring speaking to you it's like speaking to deluded drunkard having to repeat the same question without getting answer. You really are a deluded idiot and you complain about insults but you think it's ok for you to do them to others as I have seen to do to other members yet again this fits into your profile of your illness. I am done speaking to you and will happily ignore your comments you in fact destroy this forum with your drivel and destroy any reasoning or healthy debate with your superior complex as well as discredit ex servicemen you constantly do this you in any of your posts always have to disagree argue and have never admitted when you're wrong and never acceptedadvice this is fact. You should be ashamed at discrediting ex servicemens advice they have served you havent
    Eehnie you just back up everything I've said about you. That you fail to answer questions fail to accept when you're wrong fail to see your the obsessed one. You always fail accept advice of those who know. I however don't act like this and it's very clear that I don't.  You still fail to see reason and think your right 100% all the time when in FACT your not. It's fine keep lying to yourself it doesn't bother me that you live a deluded life on here. Everything I've said about you is true and factual and everyone can see it. You fail to compromise which is another clear indication of your superior complex. So eehnie why won't you answer the simple questions? ???????

    Because you know that the true answers are not what you care to admit. You answer what you want and fail to answer or acknowledge other questions this is very clear in your posts

    You are ridiculizing yourself until limits difficul to reach.

    You are really good showing your outstanding ignorance.

    You only have been cheerleading wrong arguments, and you pretend to force me to do the same.

    Better if you go to study something.

    Eehnie it's you who is the ignorant one you constantly ignore simple questions only choosing what you want to answer you constantly display superior complex behaviour you fail to even see or accept compromises and resolutions because your illness does not allow such. You always disagree with everyone and fail to accept advice and never admit when your wrong this is also a clear sign of your illness. As for insults you have done many insults to others on here but that's ok for you to do but not others yet again another sign of your superior complex behaviour. Quite frankly it's becoming boring speaking to you it's like speaking to deluded drunkard having to repeat the same question without getting answer. You should be ashamed of discrediting ex servicemens advice they have went through the training and served for there countries to which you haven't. You believe that after reading a handful of pages online your suddenly an expert on everything. I've tried to reason with you but you can't reason with someone who has a superior complex. This is the end I can happily skim over your long copy and pasted drivel and move on to the next post. I know that you will never accept advice or views of others or admit when your wrong. If you don't like what I have said feel free to put me on your ignore list I really don't care. You destroy this forum and destroy any healthy debate and discredit others who have more knowledge than you or try to offer real advice or information. Read digest and move on no need for a reply although I know that you will have to because that's the superior complex you have. Anyway I said many posts ago about a compromise you failed to accept or acknowledge it. This the end of it as far as I am concerned
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2512
    Points : 2529
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  eehnie on Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:02 pm

    You are unable to dentify who has and who has not proper knowledge about what we are talking about. Vladimir79 knows not how to do a proper market analysis. He proved it with his comments. The importance of the real demand is key. If the projections of future demand agree not with the real demand of the last years and even decades, there is a problem. Oversized projections of future demand are very habitual in failed business.

    My words prove my knowledge and your words prove your ignorance. This is a reality of which you will not escape.

    You only know to parrot stupid things and to insult. You can continue clowning yourself.
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1683
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:31 pm

    eehnie wrote:You are unable to dentify who has and who has not proper knowledge about what we are talking about. Vladimir79 knows not how to do a proper market analysis. He proved it with his comments. The importance of the real demand is key. If the projections of future demand agree not with the real demand of the last years and even decades, there is a problem. Oversized projections of future demand are very habitual in failed business.

    My words prove my knowledge and your words prove your ignorance. This is a reality of which you will not escape.

    You only know to parrot stupid things and to insult. You can continue clowning yourself.
    I keep forgetting eehnie that your also expert businessman and market analysis. All hail the Oracle.
    Yet again fail to answer questions because of your superior complex getting in the way this is now complete fact. Keep lying to yourself you are the clown who thinks he knows best.You even failed to read people's responses. Nobody expected it (TVS 2DTS ) to get to the same numbers of An -2 the whole discussion was on its usefulness and that a replacement was needed as well as talking about the NEW aircraft. I like I have mentioned before (not you notice with your illness) that time will tell if they produce the 200 mentioned but I and many others agree it's usefulness and that the TVS 2DTS is the replacement. You are the only one who thinks everyone else is completely wrong and knows nothing whatsoever and you are the only one who knows best. This has now become very evident and you simply cannot process that your not expert and that others may know more than you or that their experiences even count. Stop thinking you are the guru at everything because of your views and opinions. And actually listen to what some people who have experience or knowledge on. You might actually learn something. You just dismiss everything that people say because you don't agree. Your not ex services and maybe you should listen to experiences people have and learn something. You can have your views and opinions which is fine and so can others but when it comes to factual information don't let your opinions cloud the factual information being given. I've learnt quite a few things from GarryB who had knowledge in something that I had limited knowledge in. I listened and learned. Don't think you can't learn anything from anyone on this forum because you can. Stop thinking that after reading a handful of articles your any expert and everyone else is wrong.

    I believe that you said that it wont reach above 50 units (TVS 2DTS )produced time will tell. So Let's leave this an-2 and TVS 2DTS debate here. As you disagree with me and everyone else and we disagree with you on the subjects talked about. I am happy to end it like that. And time will tell who was right or wrong.





    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7683
    Points : 7777
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:41 am

    d_taddei2 wrote:.....
    I believe that you said that it wont reach above 50 units (TVS 2DTS )produced time will tell. So Let's leave this an-2 and TVS 2DTS debate here. As you disagree with me and everyone else and we disagree with you on the subjects talked about. I am happy to end it like that. And time will tell who was right or wrong.

    50 units?

    They already have over 200 of them ordered.

    Also, new name of that aircraft is Baikal.
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1683
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  d_taddei2 on Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:02 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:.....
    I believe that you said that it wont reach above 50 units (TVS 2DTS )produced time will tell. So Let's leave this an-2 and TVS 2DTS debate here. As you disagree with me and everyone else and we disagree with you on the subjects talked about. I am happy to end it like that. And time will tell who was right or wrong.

    50 units?

    They already have over 200 of them ordered.

    Also, new name of that aircraft is Baikal.

    I've tried stating this to eehnie and these comments came from Rostec that they were already building the production facilities and that it had been signed off by various Russian ministries and Russian helicopter holding company and 200 to be built. But eehnie says no i am wrong and so is Rostec and insinuated that he knows the market better than anyone it seems even Rostec. He is after all an expert you know lol1 I given up speaking to him on the subject he doesn't or should I say can't process the acceptance of others views and experienceexperiences. But that's his choice.
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2512
    Points : 2529
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  eehnie on Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:35 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:You are unable to dentify who has and who has not proper knowledge about what we are talking about. Vladimir79 knows not how to do a proper market analysis. He proved it with his comments. The importance of the real demand is key. If the projections of future demand agree not with the real demand of the last years and even decades, there is a problem. Oversized projections of future demand are very habitual in failed business.

    My words prove my knowledge and your words prove your ignorance. This is a reality of which you will not escape.

    You only know to parrot stupid things and to insult. You can continue clowning yourself.
    I keep forgetting eehnie that your also expert businessman and market analysis. All hail the Oracle.  
    Yet again fail to answer questions because of your superior complex getting in the way this is now complete fact. Keep lying to yourself you are the clown who thinks he knows best.You even failed to read people's responses. Nobody expected it (TVS 2DTS ) to get to the same numbers of An -2 the whole discussion was on its usefulness and that a replacement was needed as well as talking about the NEW aircraft. I like I have mentioned before  (not you notice with your illness) that time will tell if they produce the 200 mentioned but I and many others agree it's usefulness and that the TVS 2DTS is the replacement. You are the only one who thinks everyone else is completely wrong and knows nothing whatsoever and you are the only one who knows best. This has now become very evident and you simply cannot process that your not expert and that others may know more than you or that their experiences even count. Stop thinking you are the guru at everything because of your views and opinions. And actually listen to what some people who have experience or knowledge on. You might actually learn something. You just dismiss everything that people say because you don't agree. Your not ex services and maybe you should listen to experiences people have and learn something. You can have your views and opinions which is fine and so can others but when it comes to factual information don't let your opinions cloud the factual information being given. I've learnt quite a few things from GarryB who had knowledge in something that I had limited knowledge in. I listened and learned. Don't think you can't learn anything from anyone on this forum because you can. Stop thinking that after reading a handful of articles your any expert and everyone else is wrong.  

    I believe that you said that it wont reach above 50 units (TVS 2DTS )produced time will tell. So Let's leave this an-2 and TVS 2DTS debate here. As you disagree with me and everyone else and we disagree with you on the subjects talked about. I am happy to end it like that. And time will tell who was right or wrong.

    You can continue making a clown of yourself.

    Everyone that learned enough in an engineering school, to pass an Industry Engineering M.Sc. program of 5 years in the university oriented to economic management, and learned about economic management, management of the production, marketing, strategic management, quality management, in adition to a strong program on mathematics, statistic, mechanical engineering and electric and electronic engineering, knows that what I say is right from a technical and economic point.

    Your words instead are empty of knowledge. You will not escape to this reality.

    As example, why are you even talking about the TVS 2DTS project in the Defense section of this forum if it is a civil project that includes a US engine that makes the aircraft not apt for the Russian Armed Forces?

    Obviously you expected this aircraft reaching the Russian Armed Forces like presented. Everything you say shows your ignorance.
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1683
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  d_taddei2 on Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:23 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:You are unable to dentify who has and who has not proper knowledge about what we are talking about. Vladimir79 knows not how to do a proper market analysis. He proved it with his comments. The importance of the real demand is key. If the projections of future demand agree not with the real demand of the last years and even decades, there is a problem. Oversized projections of future demand are very habitual in failed business.

    My words prove my knowledge and your words prove your ignorance. This is a reality of which you will not escape.

    You only know to parrot stupid things and to insult. You can continue clowning yourself.
    I keep forgetting eehnie that your also expert businessman and market analysis. All hail the Oracle.  
    Yet again fail to answer questions because of your superior complex getting in the way this is now complete fact. Keep lying to yourself you are the clown who thinks he knows best.You even failed to read people's responses. Nobody expected it (TVS 2DTS ) to get to the same numbers of An -2 the whole discussion was on its usefulness and that a replacement was needed as well as talking about the NEW aircraft. I like I have mentioned before  (not you notice with your illness) that time will tell if they produce the 200 mentioned but I and many others agree it's usefulness and that the TVS 2DTS is the replacement. You are the only one who thinks everyone else is completely wrong and knows nothing whatsoever and you are the only one who knows best. This has now become very evident and you simply cannot process that your not expert and that others may know more than you or that their experiences even count. Stop thinking you are the guru at everything because of your views and opinions. And actually listen to what some people who have experience or knowledge on. You might actually learn something. You just dismiss everything that people say because you don't agree. Your not ex services and maybe you should listen to experiences people have and learn something. You can have your views and opinions which is fine and so can others but when it comes to factual information don't let your opinions cloud the factual information being given. I've learnt quite a few things from GarryB who had knowledge in something that I had limited knowledge in. I listened and learned. Don't think you can't learn anything from anyone on this forum because you can. Stop thinking that after reading a handful of articles your any expert and everyone else is wrong.  

    I believe that you said that it wont reach above 50 units (TVS 2DTS )produced time will tell. So Let's leave this an-2 and TVS 2DTS debate here. As you disagree with me and everyone else and we disagree with you on the subjects talked about. I am happy to end it like that. And time will tell who was right or wrong.

    You can continue making a clown of yourself.

    Everyone that learned enough in an engineering school, to pass an Industry Engineering M.Sc. program of 5 years in the university oriented to economic management, and learned about economic management, management of the production, marketing, strategic management, quality management, in adition to a strong program on mathematics, statistic, mechanical engineering and electric and electronic engineering, knows that what I say is right from a technical and economic point.

    Your words instead are empty of knowledge. You will not escape to this reality.

    As example, why are you even talking about the TVS 2DTS project in the Defense section of this forum if it is a civil project that includes a US engine that makes the aircraft not apt for the Russian Armed Forces?

    Obviously you expected this aircraft reaching the Russian Armed Forces like presented. Everything you say shows your ignorance.


    Your rIghtfield anyone who attended such school will have those skills and your not one of them. And if one did say anything you would of course challenge them because of your illness. You also forgot business management and market research skills of which you also have none. And you also continue to fail to read the original post because of your illness I think it's about time you got some treatment. Because your the only clown on this forum in fact you're the court jester of the forum. You really do make me laugh with your deluded belief that your right and everyone else is wrong. You just copy and paste drivel. And think it's gospel because you posted it..
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2512
    Points : 2529
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  eehnie on Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:23 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:Your rIghtfield anyone who attended such school will have those skills and your not one of them. And if one did say anything you would of course challenge them because of your illness. You also forgot business management and market research skills of which you also have none. And you also continue to fail to read the original post because of your illness I think it's about time you got some treatment. Because your the only clown on this forum in fact you're the court jester of the forum. You really do make me laugh with your deluded belief that your right and everyone else is wrong. You just copy and paste drivel. And think it's gospel because you posted it..

    This comment is again consequence of your complete ignorance. Never bored of showing your ignorance.

    Your insults are not allowed, your ignorace will be exposed as deep as it is.

    What means a US engine in a project like this?
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1683
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  d_taddei2 on Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:56 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:Your rIghtfield anyone who attended such school will have those skills and your not one of them. And if one did say anything you would of course challenge them because of your illness. You also forgot business management and market research skills of which you also have none. And you also continue to fail to read the original post because of your illness I think it's about time you got some treatment. Because your the only clown on this forum in fact you're the court jester of the forum. You really do make me laugh with your deluded belief that your right and everyone else is wrong. You just copy and paste drivel. And think it's gospel because you posted it..

    This comment is again consequence of your complete ignorance. Never bored of showing your ignorance.

    Your insults are not allowed, your ignorace will be exposed as deep as it is.

    What means a US engine in a project like this?


    Like I have already proven multiple times who the ignorant one is. It's you eehnie your the most ignorant person on this forum and I've proven it. It's now a FACT. And do you really think any russian company including Rostec haven't seen the issue with sanctions and are totally incapable of producing such an engine. I thought you were a master at engineering and would have thought of that clearly not. And eehnie you will never overcome your fear of being wrong or your fear of accepting anyone else's views might be right including experts. You will always show your superior complex this is a fact. I can only but pity you because you don't see your illness and therefore without you noticing the problem can never overcome the illnesses you clearly display.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 2899
    Points : 2895
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  Isos on Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:55 pm

    It's useless to debate with him. He has "sources" for every words he says.
    avatar
    marat

    Posts : 232
    Points : 230
    Join date : 2015-04-26

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  marat on Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:24 pm

    Including sources that Leader class destroyers are in production Smile
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2512
    Points : 2529
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  eehnie on Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:46 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:Your rIghtfield anyone who attended such school will have those skills and your not one of them. And if one did say anything you would of course challenge them because of your illness. You also forgot business management and market research skills of which you also have none. And you also continue to fail to read the original post because of your illness I think it's about time you got some treatment. Because your the only clown on this forum in fact you're the court jester of the forum. You really do make me laugh with your deluded belief that your right and everyone else is wrong. You just copy and paste drivel. And think it's gospel because you posted it..

    This comment is again consequence of your complete ignorance. Never bored of showing your ignorance.

    Your insults are not allowed, your ignorace will be exposed as deep as it is.

    What means a US engine in a project like this?


    Like I have already proven multiple times who the ignorant one is. It's you eehnie your the most ignorant person on this forum and I've proven it. It's now a FACT. And do you really think any russian company including Rostec haven't seen the issue with sanctions and are totally incapable of producing such an engine. I thought you were a master at engineering and would have thought of that clearly not. And eehnie you will never overcome your fear of being wrong or your fear of accepting anyone else's views might be right including experts. You will always show your superior complex this is a fact. I can only but pity you because you don't see your illness and therefore without you noticing the problem can never overcome the illnesses you clearly display.

    Full of ignorance you proved to know not the meaning of to prove. You know not how to prove anything.

    Your insults have been allowed by the administrator and moderators and you now feel entitled to continue the non-sense without any relation with the topic. But your comments are totally absurd, just reflecting your mind.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 12858
    Points : 13345
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  George1 on Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:57 am

    @eehnie, @d_taddei2

    put an end on this, discussion on topic is being continued with insults at each other
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2512
    Points : 2529
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  eehnie on Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:45 am

    I insulted not George1. I received insults.
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1683
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  d_taddei2 on Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:43 am

    George1 Very happy to.

    Just for the record I did on multiple occasions tried to compromise with him and end the discussion but he refused and failed to acknowledge. I even suggested the ignore function he can use. But he also insulted many times before and not just me.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 19946
    Points : 20498
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:27 pm

    You are ignoring the main weakness of the concept: The lack of sales. The lack of interest and orders of the customers.

    The An-2 is in widespread use in Russia in civilian use... as mentioned there have been large numbers of replacements offered but all have generally failed because they were too expensive or not simple enough or simply could not match the performance of the An-2.

    If this new plane is only 1.2 million then it should be very very popular as a replacement...

    To quote Wiki
    Its remarkable durability, high lifting power, and ability to take off and land from poor runways have given it a long service life. The An-2 was produced up to 2001 and remains in service with military and civilian operators around the world.

    IN fact you should read the wiki page:

    The Antonov An-2 is a mass-produced single-engine biplane that has been commonly used as a utility and agricultural aircraft. It is deliberately furnished with a minimum of complex systems. The crucial wing leading edge slats that give the aircraft its slow flight ability are fully automatic, being held closed by the airflow over the wings. Once the airspeed drops below 64 km/h (40 mph), the slats will extend because they are on elastic rubber springs.[4] Under typical conditions, the take-off is complete within 170 m (560 ft) while the landing run requires 215 m (705 ft); these figures will vary dependent upon various factors, such as the aircraft's take-off/landing weight, the external air temperature, surface roughness, and headwind.[4]

    The An-2 is equipped with various design features which make it suitable for operation in remote areas with unsurfaced airstrips. It is fitted with a pneumatic brake system (similar to those used on heavy road vehicles) to stop on short runways, along with an air line attached to the compressor, so the pressure in the tires and shock absorbers can be adjusted without the need for installing specialised equipment.[4] The batteries, while sizable, are relatively easy to remove, so the aircraft does not need a ground power unit to supply power for starting the engine. Likewise, there is no need for an external fuel pump to refuel the aircraft as it is provided with an inbuilt onboard pump, which allows the tanks to be filled from simple fuel drums.[4]
    Antonov An-2 (An2-TP)

    The An-2 has no stall speed, a fact which is quoted in the operating handbook. A note from the pilot's handbook reads: "If the engine quits in instrument conditions or at night, the pilot should pull the control column full aft and keep the wings level. The leading-edge slats will snap out at about 64 km/h (40 mph) and when the airplane slows to a forward speed of about 40 km/h (25 mph), the airplane will sink at about a parachute descent rate until the aircraft hits the ground."[4] As such, pilots of the An-2 have stated that they are capable of flying the aircraft in full control at 48 km/h (30 mph) (as a contrast, a modern Cessna four-seater light aircraft has a stall speed of around 80 km/h (50 mph)). This slow stall speed makes it possible for the aircraft to fly backwards relative to the ground (if the aircraft is pointed into a headwind of roughly 56 km/h (35 mph), it will travel backwards at 8.0 km/h (5 mph) whilst under full control).[4]

    The An-2's ability, looks and flying characteristics, and its status as one of the world's biggest single-engined production biplanes, mean that demand for the An-2 is increasing in Western Europe and the United States, where they are prized by collectors of classic aircraft, making it an increasingly common sight at airshows. Many western countries prohibit the use of the An-2 commercially because the aircraft has not been certified by the relevant national aviation authorities. These restrictions vary by country, but all prevent the An-2 being used for any 'for profit' purpose, with the exception of the United States, where An-2s imported since 1993 are limited to experimental certification

    Say it to Ukraine.

    Why?

    Give specific examples.

    I remember you saying the Risachok was the successor of the An-2/4/6. But the Risachok also lacks orders. The numbers of An-2/4/6 are declining with the time, but there are not sales of their supposed successors. These aircrafts are not being useful, are not attracting to the custormers. Not even to the former users of An-2/4/6. While you continue ignoring the main problem, you will continue giving wrong opinions, like at the time of the Risachok.

    The Rysachok was supposed to replace the An-2, but then so was the An-3, and also a few other planes, but in the end there were reasons it didn't replace the An-2... most of the time it was cost... the new aircraft were too expensive or couldn't operate in the same conditions.

    It didn't replace the An-2 because it never got beyond prototype stage...


    As of 2015, there were thousands of An-2s remaining in operation around the world, including over 1,500 in Russia, 294 in Kazakhstan and 54 in Ukraine.[3]

    There is plenty of market for a new plane in that performance class...

    Then it is not ideal. Well, aircrafts for training of auxiliary/civil aircraft pilots are not a new concept. The development of this concept is leading to aircrafts in the mold of the Diamond DA42, that are under 2.2 tons MTOW. These aircrafts allow to smaller operational costs than the An-2 for the training of auxiliary/civil aircraft pilots.

    The DA42 is a foreign aircraft, and would be next to useless for parachute training or light cargo delivery.

    Also, new name of that aircraft is Baikal.

    Good... TVS-2-DTS is just too much of a mouthful.

    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2512
    Points : 2529
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  eehnie on Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:30 pm

    Ukrane and the countries that are helping to Ukraine are losing millions in UAVs that are fairly smaller and have smaller signature, but still are shut down by manpads, not by bigger air defense systems.

    In the rest of the comment there is nothing that makes to increase the demand of this type of aircrafts that is very low. Unlikel in the case of the helicopters, the number of customers of new aircrafts around this size is very low in this century. The declining in the demand was very strong in the 1990 has has not been recovered in the last years, unlike for other aircrafts.

    And the strong competence of the helicopters is only increasing:

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3332966.html
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbmpd.livejournal.com%2F3332966.html

    Continuation of the Ka-62 helicopter program

    bmpd
    September 8Th, 4:18

    As reported on September 6, 2018 PJSC "Russian Helicopters", a flight model of the newest civil multipurpose helicopter Ka-62, manufactured by JSC "AAK" Progress "named after N.I. Sazykin "holding company" Helicopters of Russia "(part of Rostekh State Corporation), made its first flight and landed on Russky Island on the campus of the Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU) in Vladivostok, where it will be presented to the participants and guests of the Eastern Economic Forum.

    The first first flight prototype of the Ka-62 helicopter (OP-1, serial number 97876210101) while boarding the Russian Island on the campus of the Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU) in Vladivostok for demonstration in the exposition of the Eastern Economic Forum, 06.09.2018 (с) Yuri Smitiuk / TASS

    Further in the release of PJSC "Helicopters of Russia" it says:

    The first test flight of Ka-62 took place in May 2017. Over the past year, flight tests were conducted, which resulted in improvements to improve the reliability of the helicopter. In particular, the design of the body of the steering screw and the tail unit has been improved and strengthened, and a transmission of a standard design has been installed. Upon completion of all necessary work, the Ka-62 helicopter performed a series of regular and stable test flights in accordance with the test program, which confirmed its high performance and low fuel consumption compared to its competitors. During the final flight of the test program, the helicopter flew 260 km.

    "First of all, I would like to congratulate our employees, testers and designers - they perfectly know what a difficult project this project has. Nevertheless, we decided to continue it, and over the past year we have been able to make significant progress, both in terms of the construction of the helicopter and in determining specific directions for its use. All this is especially important taking into account the tasks to increase the segment of manufactured civil products and to preserve the production load of Progress, "said Andrei Boginsky, General Director of the holding company Helicopters of Russia.

    Until the end of 2018, it is planned to complete the factory tests of the Ka-62 and begin certification.
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1683
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  d_taddei2 on Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:00 pm

    Without repeating the specifications of the
    TVS 2DTS but rather cover key points including some criticisms. Copy and pasted from various article's some already been mentioned.

    It will be able to land on short unprepared runways, water and snow.

    Polar Airlines and Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant (UUAP, part of Russian Helicopters holding) have signed a contract for delivery of TVS-2DTS, the light composite single-engine turboprop airplane, based on Antonov An-2 design. The deal, which is part of a large-scale project to develop local air connections in Buryatiya and Yakutia regions, was announced by Russian Helicopters holding company.

    The first deliveries are scheduled for 2021. Within the timeframe between 2021 and 2025 UUAP plans to deliver NO LESS than 200 aircraft for the needs of regional aviation,” the official announcement reads.

    The production of the aircraft is expected to be launched by 2019. It is also not excluded that Russia’s State Transport Leasing Corporation (GTLK) may join in the contract

    The Rostec Corporation of Russia has launched manufacturing activity of TVS-2DTS light aircraft at the Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant (U-UAZ), a member of the Russian Helicopters holding company.
    It will be used for passengers, medivac, fire-fighting missions and for agricultural purposes.
    Future applications planned for the aircraft include light reconnaissance and light attack.

    According to Seryoznov, new aircraft from the first series will cost about $ 1.5 million, but the price is expected to fall to $1.2 million
    He said that the state demand for such an aircraft will stand at about 350 aircraft, due to be supplied to the Russian Armed Forces as well as state bodies dealing with air medical services and forest protection.

    In addition to the domestic market, the new aircraft will be supplied abroad, particularly to Mongolia, Indonesia and Malaysia and some other countries, which, to date, have already expressed an interest in the purchases of the new aircraft. According to his calculations, 700 An-2 biplanes are still used in Russia while, globally, this market figure is estimated at 4,500 units.

    Denis Manturov, minister of industry and trade, states that a budget of Rb220 million ($3.9 million) has been allocated for the project in 2018, to be followed by Rb230 million over the next two years.

    Production is scheduled to start at the Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant, which is more used to building Mil Mi-8 helicopters, by 2019, with an obligation to deliver "at least" 200 aircraft between 2021 and 2025, Russian Helicopters says.

    The government is willing to partially subsidise certification expenses to manufacturers of aircraft for local transportation, as well as expenses on implementation of projects for manufacturing preparation and certification," Manturov says.

    The prototype TVS-2DTS was presented at the MAKS-2017 airshow, where he was nicknamed the maize of the 21st century. For the first time this aircraft was raised in the air on July 10 this year. It is known that during this time the pilots flew more than 15 hours on it, including an 11-hour flight from Novosibirsk to the Ramenskoye airfield.

    Honeywell engine is on consumption 15-20% lower than any domestic engines of this class. Although they are considering full  domestic produced engine

    There was concerns of  the composite material not being strong enough but some people - although I don't think that this is out with Russian capabilities to make it strong enough.

    Sanctions wars between Russia and the US, hoping they will not affect its segment of aircraft-building. Moreover, SibNIA has an agreement with Honeywell on the localisation of the engine assembly in Russia in due course. At the moment, 30 engines have already been supplied by Honeywell to the Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant for use in the TVS-2DTS. Under the terms of the agreement, local production will begin after the completion of deliveries of a certain number of engines.

    Russia by Western countries, SibNIA says it will consider beginning assembling a biplane entirely from local parts and components. However, that will result in increased fuel consumption as well as other problems during its use - yet again I don't think producing a domestic engine of this time to be out with Russian capabilities it's not exactly the most sophisticated type of engine if you take into account what Russia already produces.

    Although eehnie stated that
    " the strong competence of the helicopters is only increasing"
    You only have to look at the fact that Russian Helicopters holding company are the ones producing it which tells you that even they seen the potential in this category. As GarryB and others stated the price point is much cheaper than a helicopter of the similar specs as well distance and speed offered.

    I would also point out that a paying passenger on a local flight that flying in a fixed wing aircraft is much more comfortable than a noisy helicopter. I've flown in fairly small aircraft as well as helicopters and I would definitely say a fixed wing is less noisy. Also if there ever was a problem with the engine a pilot has a better chance of landing a fixed wing aircraft full of passengers than a helicopter full of passengers loooooool.

    On the point of UAV in Ukraine a UAV and the TVS 2DTS or An-2 serve two completely different roles and nobody in there right mind would flying such an aircraft in a known threat of any air defence. One of the key benefits of a UAV is the fact it's unmanned so therefore they can take more risks flying them near enemy airspace without the risk of loss of life.

    As GarryB stated back on another thread on the forum on 5th April 2018
    " the US feared the An-2 in North Korean hands as the first stealth aircraft... on a normal look down radar to avoid the massive reflection of the ground and things on the ground most pulse dopplar radars remove slow moving things from the display... if it displayed things moving at 10km/h you would have branches on trees and grass and people jogging... if they displayed things moving 100km/h you would have cars on motorways appearing, so look down radar used to have a speed limit where anything going slower would not be displayed... to be clear the slower targets would be detected, but they would not appear on the display... they would pretty much be removed because they were considered noise.

    The An-2 can be flown safely down to about 60km/h... so in a 50km/h head wind it will have a ground speed of 10km/h.

    This newer aircraft can probably do even better... there is no wire or strut supports that cause a lot of drag on biplanes"

    As I stated previously the north Koreans tested with radar
    An- 2 that they had replaced certain parts with wood to reduce signature and although it's a crude method it actually worked. There plans were to use them to paradrop special forces into south korea. Also I remember reading that the soviet army used An-2 to drop special forces onto big snow drifts the An-2 would fly very low and very slow and the troops would jump out without parachutes. Although I would imagine this still to be quite a daunting jump.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:04 am