Russian Transport Aircraft fleet (VTA)

Il-276 I guess it's a dead project. Maybe that's why they decided to go for il-212 which turbofan engines

I was surprised with the suggestion of the Il-212, but really it should have been obvious... it is the exact same solution used previously to replace the propeller Antonovs with the An-72.

Using an available engine just makes sense...

Plus I would not say Il-276 is a dead project, I would say it is not a huge priority right now and plans for joint development with India was a blow to the programme, but it still makes sense and if completed would sell very well on the international market... if only because the main western alternatives are much more expensive... the C-130 and A-400Ms are slower and rather more expensive to buy.

The fact that we have not heard any news about the Il-276 is probably because there is no news... they will be working to get production of the Il-476 up to speed first as a higher priority focus and then look at what they need to do to get the Il-276 ready for serial production.

It is supposed to be an Il-476 with shorter wings and a shorter fuselage and only two engines so they are not reinventing the wheel.

Aircraft get lengthened and shortened all the time to make them more profitable for certain jobs...

My opinion is that they should proceed with il-112 maybe with an enlarged version with 4 instead of 2 turboprop engines.

They didn't for the same reason they didn't make the An-2 with two engines to replace the An-24 or An-26, or put four engines on the An-24 and An-26 to replace the An-12, etc etc.

The fuselage of the Il-112 was optimised to replace the cargo prop driven Antonov... which was the An-26. The Il-114 is the airliner troop transport replacement for the An-24. The Il-212 is essentially using the An-72 solution to replace them both using the best available new engine at the moment. The il-212 will suit the military but as a commercial aircraft it will fail for the same reasons the An-72 failed to replace the An-24 and An-26. Those propeller driven aircraft are much cheaper and simpler to operate, and an il-112 will also be much cheaper to use than the Il-212 which is why it should be made eventually. From a military point of view they can replace the An-24/26/72/140 with Il-212s because fuel costs are not critical. Over time they can introduce the Il-112 using the same engines the Il-114 will be using to reduce costs bu that is not urgent.

Russia will have all the information and statistics showing which types get used and how often and why. Of course sometimes they can be biased... you might have a cargo route going from A to B where AB is always full with 20 tons of payload ever trip, while its return trip is barely used... maybe 3 tons and half a dozen passengers.

Sometimes you have a huge aircraft with massive payload capacity flying a very very short distance because the load cannot be broken apart and you only need to take it 500km to where it is wanted. You can't use small aircraft for that because of the payload capacity required, but that is where management comes in, there might be a load that place you are taking it that is only a quarter the size of that aircrafts weight capacity, but it needs to be taken 10,000km so the big plane takes the super heavy load 500km and then takes a relatively small load for that aircraft type and enormous distance in one flight without stopping for fuel etc.

It is complex, but some lighter aircraft can operate from smaller airstrips than the bigger types and get  their payloads closer to the customer.

Of course massive aircraft can deliver enormous payloads from one region to another all together in one load which reduces the chances of portions of the payload going missing or to the wrong destination.

Smaller aircraft are cheaper to buy and to operate too and for commercial operators having a turboprop type in the Il-112V that has the same engine as the il-114 which they use as an airliner and the Mi-38 for locations where there is no airstrip... like an oil rig... the turboprop engine will be cheaper to operate than a PD-8 jet engine... and commercially that could be critical.

I wonder why the Russians don't make a stretched version of the An-124 like the program IL-76MF. This will save R&D budget.

They essentially did... the original An-124 had a payload capacity of 120 tons (compared with 105 tons for the US C-5 Galaxy), and the current model An-124 has a payload capacity of about 150 tons.

The An-225 has a capacity of 250 tons.

But these are Soviet designs... as Robert.V points out above Ilyusion and Tupolev and Myasishchev all have their own models and plans they want to make... Russia already funded Antonov designs... the An-70 was a Russian funded design... and how did that end?

Russia needs planes but it wants planes it owns and will not be blackmailed over...

The 212 plane is supposed to replace the An-26.

The 212 is really a replacement for the An-72 which was supposed to replace both the An-24 and An-26, so it would be able to replace them all.

The issue would be the Il-112V with 4,500hp and with the engines reliable and safe would be cheaper and save a lot of money over the life time of the aircraft in fuel, which is not critical for the Russian military, but for commercial operators is significant enough to make that version worth while.

Keep in mind that this engine is going to be used by the Il-114 which will replace the An-24 and the Mi-38 and will be used in drones and likely other types as well so having it on your Il-112V cargo replacement for the An-26 makes a lot of sense commercially too. Your spare parts pool needing fewer different parts types, which is always good.

No one is on par with China in the manufacturing arena, and probably in Construction as well.

Their accomplishments are amazing, but if Russia wants to beat them I that regard I think is a waste of effort and also a plan to fail bad.

Plus I expect it would be a dream come true for the US and the EU and they might even help Russia by dropping all its sanctions but only because Russia would be essentially destroying itself to hurt China for western interests... the same mistake Kiev made and is paying for now.

The production capacity for China is going to make progress and development for the world so much better and with BRICS hopefully everyone can benefit from their skills and capacity...

Actually the Ladoga is a derivative of the Let L-610 (not Let L-410) with some design concepts from An-140.

A technicality that reflects that factories making a foreign design would rather keep making that foreign design no matter what... because it is safer and easier...

The Russian military will use the Il-114 to replace the An-24, the Il-112V would use a related engine to replace the cargo An-26. That related engine is also used by drones and the Mi-38 helicopter so there is parts and engine commonality with aircraft they already use.

The Ladoga uses a completely different engine and different aircraft designs.

For replacing civilian aircraft it might be fine but for military aircraft they have chosen a different path.

If they wanted the same cargo bay dimensions they could have just used an Il-114 with a big cargo bay door fitted.

Instead they redesigned the fuselage to allow larger more bulky payloads to be carried, which resulted in the Il-112... which is what they wanted.

The engines weren't powerful enough or reliable enough so they went for the old solution of above wing jet engines that worked so well on the An-72.

Note the An-72 didn't replace the An-24 and An-26 because those propeller driven aircraft have cheaper operational costs... just like the il-112V will... which is why eventually they will make it.

The Il-212 will be a good aircraft for the military and will get passengers to their destinations faster, which will be popular for some routes, but most of the time the slower cheaper Il-112 is going to be used too.

And the An-26 is basically an An-24 with rear ramp

Whereas the Il-112 has an enlarged fuselage for bulkier items for cargo transport while the An-24/Ladoga equivalent is the Il-114.

Anyway, the L-610 was designed under request of Aeroflot as a an-24 successor, so, making a An-26 successor from the Ladoga would not be strange at all.

Except when the Russian military are funding Antonov replacements too based on Russian aircraft designs.

The il-112v was a dog, wrong wings, wrong shape, did not fly well and could not take advantage of the relatively wide fuselage because of limited max payload (even if it did not have problems

The Il-112V is a fatty because they wanted more internal space for their payloads. It wasn't as fast or as long ranged as foreign types with slimmer more aerodynamic bodies, but anyone who is fat understands that.

The fact of the matter is that cargo planes are not sprinters and not long distance runners... they are pie eating competition winners... and smart money is on the fat guys.

Over time they could reduce structural weight and improve engine power and reliability and adapt it to become a better aircraft, but I dare say the design choices were made to allow it to carry specific cargo and payloads and that the speed and range and drag penalties were accepted to enable the capabilities the design allows.

Clearly those foreign aircraft with superior speed and range would be no good if they are slim and cannot carry the payloads they want to carry.

Personally I would like to see a 10 tons payload turboprop (like the An-8 ) powered by two 5000 hp PDV-4000 turboprop engines.

Maybe it could have some similarities with the Il-212, but I do not know if it would be needed as it would cover the same niche as the il-212.

Turboprops use less fuel and are cheaper to operate... that is why they continue to use An-24 and An-26 aircraft at a time when An-72s are also available.

So the Il-112V continues to make sense as long as the problems are addressed and they are going ahead with the il-114 and Mi-38 and Altius drones so the engine is going to be developed and deployed widely which just makes the idea of the Il-112V even more attractive even with the Il-212 in serial production too.

The Il-112V will be cheaper to buy and operate and use an engine already used by the An-24 replacement, so it makes sense to use it as an An-26 replacement too.

The Ladoga with the rear ramp would be instead a relatively low effort derivative for the 5tons payload (if needed). It cannot carry very wide objects, but most of those (i.e. special vehicles) would be too heavy anyway.

The Il-212 and potential for the Il-112V make such a modification redundant... no matter how viable it might be.

It could be useful, however, in some small airports, and it will have a lower operating cost than the An-72 / il-212.

The Ladoga would have a different engine from the Il-114 and Mi-38 and any Altius drones the Russian military might operate, so using Il-212 and Il-112 makes more sense. For commercial operators the Il-112 would be a very good idea as it will be cheaper than the Il-212 cargo alternative.

The il-212 is basically a modern redesigned An-72/74.

Which means the Il-112 is a modern redesigned An-72 too... and both have enough advantages and improvements to make their serial production useful for the Russian military.

(I do appreciate your point that most aircraft are derived from previous types and that this is normal.)

It will have new engines, new wing, new fuselage shape and probably new landing gear.

That is not true. They said they will change the wings because of the different way the engines will be mounted to them and the fuel system is going to be changed but everything else is supposed to be the same. The fuselage shape was fat for a prop aircraft but with jet engines it is less of a problem, and the design to allow larger internal payloads of more bulky design will benefit both aircraft.

If they were making a brand new aircraft design it would not be faster to develop...

The only reason they said it is a il-112v with "some" changes is because they cannot admit that they wasted so many years and money on a failed project with many contradicting requirements which was also badly designed.

The only good thing coming from that crap is the learning experience.

I disagree... their only problem was that the engine didn't develop as quickly as the aircraft design did so when the aircraft was ready for testing the engines weren't.

Further development of the engines for Il-114s and Mi-38s and drones means the engines are now ready but they didn't wait and have chosen to repeat the An-72 solution to replace the propeller driven Antonov light transports.

Not a bad decision, but the Il-112V still makes sense.

In addition they could do a 20 tons payload aircraft powered by either 2 PD-8S turboprops (10000 or 12000 hp) or by 4 PDV-4000.

That would give it the engine power to replace the An-12 but not the cabin capacity.

The Yak-44 has two 13,500 hp engines with D-27 14 blade contra rotating props... they might have further improved and refined the engine design and perhaps even improved the propeller design but using it on as many aircraft where it makes sense, makes sense.

As far as the il-276, the reason I do not like it is that its performances were lackluster already on paper.

Its goal was to make a twin jet match the performance of a quad turboprop. Using overwing engines with STOL capability might actually make it a better aircraft for the role.

(if needed, as a 20 tons payload aircraft could also be replaced by the 12 tons payload il-212 plus the 30-35 tons payload Tu-330).

This might be true, but analysis of cargo transport management clearly decided on a 20 ton payload standard... for which a 30-35 ton payload aircraft will be too big and expensive, and a 12 ton payload or 15 ton payload aircraft might be too light.

Of course without the numbers it is hard to say, but if 20 tons of pallets are used most of the time then replacing it with an aircraft optimised for 20 tons makes good sense.

Equally you have to look to the future too because new equipment often gets heavier so is 20 tons still enough?

Most smart designers of equipment know the payload capacities of pallets and aircraft and ships and trains and trucks for the design of their platform.

The only reason the C-17 exists is because the C-141 couldn't carry an Abrams tank so if they wanted to fly an Abrams tank they could put one Abrams tank on a C-5A galaxy. A 70 ton tank on a 105 ton capacity transport is not good economics.

Russian tanks are 40-50 tons so their Il-476 can carry 62 tons which means one tank plus crew and some ammo and probably ERA panels and extra wheels and tracks etc etc.

Exactly. Before doing modified versions of it they should bring back in production what they are capable of doing.

They should refurbish and upgrade existing flying types, and take aircraft out of storage and overhaul them... by the time they have done that they can make an Il-106
or a twin engined Slon prototype or four and test them and get them into serial production when the PD-35s are ready... and then the four engined Slon can be next... but I think the twin engined model is going to be needed in rather greater numbers...

    which problems are you talking about?
Russia should have all the rights to use An-124.

And it only takes Antonov Corp in exile with keen and generous western funding to support court cases in every country Russia operates in with these stolen designs... even if they never win a single case they can block flights and impound cargoes and cause all sorts of headaches.

The whole purpose of getting rid of the Antonovs was in part to upgrade everything beyond what they had during the cold war, but another factor is to get rid of all products owned or associated with hostile countries and Kiev is a hostile country and no one disputes Antonov is a Ukrainian company.

50 years ago you would have a case but now it is just generally accepted which in law is good enough.

Just the same I thought when Nuland was crowing about a coup only costing 5 billion dollars Russia should not have recognised the results. Banning Russian language and culture and religion would have happened anyway because that was clearly the plan.

That is easy to say now of course knowing what we now know... like Merkel is a fucking bitch and Holland is a snake... and democrats and republicans in the US are scum.

Anyway currently Russia has issues flying internationally also with tupulev and ilyushin aircrafts...

Banned from some countries airspace, but no confiscated like Antonovs have been before... and likely will again when they officially lose.

And they can also put complete Russian ownership of Antonov, ivchenko Progress and motor sich IP among the various surrendering terms of country 404.

Russia has its own engine and aircraft designers and makers... there would be no benefit from picking through the ruins of those Ukrainian companies... their factories would be making drones or repairing weapons so Russia should be bombing them to ash.

The problem is that there is no il-106 or similar at advanced development stage.

Hahaha... do you think they are going to get PD-35 ready for serial production and then have a think about what aircraft to fit them to?

Come on... when they talk about the PD-35 they specifically talk about new generation wide bodied airliners and new heavy transports, and often also mention potential for upgrades to aircraft like the Il-96 into a twin engined design.

Only an old preliminary project from the 90s, stopped before going to preliminary design review.

Encouraged by Antonov no doubt who probably had 1,000 ideas of how to upgrade the An-22 and An-124 forever...

As far as the Slon, it will not be ready anytime soon, while the an-124 could be back n serial production in 2027.

They don't operate a huge number of An-124s, and even the few they have in service they still have quite a few in storage... suggesting  they are not heavily used ATM.

The factory to make An-124s could make an Il-106 or a twin engined shortened lightened Slon prototype and then refurbish An-124s in storage and then take the ones in service and upgrade them to the same standard and by that time they can make a dozen Slon-twins for testing.

The twin engined Slon should be much cheaper to operate than the An-124 and should be able to do a lot of the jobs that are a little too heavy for the Il-476 but without the An-22 require the much bigger An-124.

It is like having a motorbike and a transit van but no car. You keep using the transit van because the motorbike is not practical for moving or collecting people or groceries, yet the van is too big for the weeks shopping and you.

Ukraine does not own Antonov history.

Antonov is a Soviet company and all their best work was from the Soviet era... currently Antonov is Ukrainian. For a short period it could have become Chinese... and I think that would have been better for the brand than what is in store for it as a Ukrainian brand.

And there is no need to waste resources the develop a brand new aircraft to replace the An-124 when many other aircrafts need replacement.

The Slon project is not new and has been going on for quite some time... many in Russia probably recognised the need for it when the cold war ended.

BTW most aircraft divisions probably have designed for heavy lifter aircraft but really only a few divisions could actually make it work...

It might end up that Yakovlev get the job to build an Ilyusion design... it has happened before... but I suspect Ilyusion and Tupolev are the departments with the real experience in aircraft that size... maybe they will work together on it?

Paradoxically, when both the An-124 and il-76 will be in parallel in production, a il-76 replacement will make more sense than a An-124 replacement (which has much more modernisation potential than the il-76).

In the Il-476 the potential for the Il-76 has been realised and is being implemented. The An-124 is a foreign countries design that Russia is using till its design companies can make something more suitable for Russia moving forward.

Slon, with four PD-35 engines will be rather better than An-124 and Slon with two engines will be almost as good but much cheaper and more reliable.

But of course now it is important to produce as many il-76 as possible, and only stop after the eventual replacement will have passed all tests and will have entered production maybe in 10/15 years from now.

With a 62 ton payload capacity the Il-476 will be the last to be replaced... it can carry a T-14, which will be their heaviest tank.

The Slon with a 180 ton payload capacity will be able to carry three... do you think that is an accident?

As written earlier an il-106 type airplane with 80tons payload will be very useful but at the moment it does not exist and there are no info that it is in development.

No information about Hazelnut until it was tested.

Just because they don't talk about something does not mean nothing is happening. Sometimes it means everything is going ahead nicely and there are no problems.

Current priorities (for VTA)
Maintaining or increasing Il-76 production    Agree

Il-212 development                                        Agree

An-124 back in production                              Disgree. Would be faster to get aircraft in storage back into use and in the background work on a replacement type for which the An-124 production facilities can be used to produce. A shared design to replace the An-22 and An-124/An225 would make sense in terms of development speed. The Slon would essentially just be a Slon lite with longer bigger wings and longer fuselage and four engines...

An-12 replacement (ideally Tu-330, but there is almost no chance that it could be ready before at least 2030)    Agree but would suggest the Il-276 would be faster even if the engines are put on top of the wing

An-22 replacement (maybe based on the old il-106 project). Agreed, but I think this has a higher priority than putting the An-124 into production as it will lead to a new type that can replace both the An-22 and An-124 with upgraded versions of the latter filling the gap while the new aircraft are perfected and serial produced.

The Il-476 is the workhorse and is a useful aircraft, the Il-212 could possibly replace the An-26 and An-72 and with one aircraft, though its costs might make the Il-112V attractive in the future depending on the engine they develop. They already have more An-124s than they are actually using so get the ones in storage upgraded and into use and by the time that is done they can make the lite slon prototypes because it will be cheaper to operate than the An-124 even if its max payload is smaller. The An-12 replacement would be logical as the Il-276 as it offers compatibility with Il-476 systems and equipment and parts and should be rather straight forward to get into serial production. As I have mentioned production serial lines could probably alternate between the two types depending on which is more urgent which should be great for production costs. The An-22 replacement will actually reduce the amount of work the An-124s need to do because the An-22 did a lot of jobs too big for the Il-476 but a bit small for the An-124. In other words if you needed 75 tons of stuff moved you would need at least two Il-476s or one An-22 or one An-124... but the latter and the former would be rather more expensive because they were not designed for such payloads.

The An-22 replacement is probably more important than the replacement for the An-124 even though the An-22 replacement  with four PD-35 engines could also replace the An-124.

Possibly other projects could be done as well, especially if piggybacking on the design for something else.

That is the advantages of the Il-212 and the Il-276 and the Slon jnr and Slon, they take work done for the Il-112 and Il-476 and Il-106 and build on it to make solid designs that do not need to be developed from scratch...

Like the Russian SARs vaccine used to create a Covid vaccine. It meant they got it done fast without cutting corners.

I.e. did not put in this list the eventual rear ramp version of the Ladoga because it will be a relatively lower effort after the Ladoga will be in service and because it is not fully clear what the air force want.

The ladoga wont have the increased cargo capacity space the Il-112 has so rather than making a cargo version of the Ladoga it would make more sense to make a cargo version of the Il-114 they will be using to replace the An-24.

The Ivan gren project has been ruined because the admiralty changed their mind about the requirements every 3 months or so...

I wouldn't say ruined... it certainly took longer and was more expensive than it should have been... but now they know not to stretch river boats into landing ship designs... sometimes commonality does not help.

Il-76 (now il-476) wasnt intended to replace the older An-12??

No. The An-70 was supposed to replace the Il-476 in the paratroop role and also replace some An-12s, but it is rather too big for complete replacement of the An-12 and it is not fast enough or long ranged enough or with enough payload capacity to completely replace the Il-476.

The VDV wanted the An-70 because it can fly slower while dropping troops and equipment so they land closer together.

So we have:

Light: An-24/26, Il-112/212
Medium: An-12
Intermediate: Il-76/476
Strategic: An-22, An-124

True but you can trade payload for range, so the tactical An-12 transport can be a light strategic transport by carrying say 5 tons of payload and 15 tons of extra fuel...

With a 20-30 ton payload the Il-476 can fly strategic distances too.

The western equivalents for the An-12 and Il-76 were the C-130 and the C-141... the former delivering equipment and ammo and weapons and the latter delivering vehicles like tanks or material in larger quantities over greater distances.

The advent of the M1 Abrams tanks made the C-141 redundant so they had to make the C-17 to carry their MBTs... Soviet and Russian tanks are lighter so the 62 ton capacity of the Il-476 is good enough and they didn't need the An-22 like the US needed the C-17.

The vast majority of the time MBTs are shipped by boat or by train rather than flown because flying is horribly expensive.

Having more types with different payload capacities offers better flexibility and reduces costs.

In Afghanistan only the Mi-8 (actually the Mi-17) could deliver to many of the bases the had in the various mountain ranges in the country, so a small box of post was delivered by a helicopter with the capacity to carry 4 tons.

A Ka-226T would have been a much cheaper option but the Mi-2 of the time couldn't operate that high so it was the Hip they had to use.

These days they have rather more options, and of course the availability of new engines means new models can be developed like that attack version of the Ansat helicopter etc.

This massive engine jump is partially financed with the sanctions.
Russia has no option other than to invest heavily in its own turbine production. Aircraft engines of this sort are the logical result. Nobody would assign billions needed for its creation lacking money from a giant gas and oil business.

This is a very big plus of sanctions. You allocate billions for the development of advanced technologies, in this case aircraft engines, which are one of the most advanced products. Sanctions are one of the best things that happened to Russia. They give a huge impetus to the development of its own technologies. The oil and gas industry, which is often criticized for supposedly causing economic stagnation, also gave a huge impetus to the development of the shipbuilding industry, including the Zviezda shipyard. In general, the large development of military technologies will again have its impact in the future on the development of new technologies, materials, etc.
Russia has technology, money, and a rapidly developing economy. They now have a chance to become one of the pioneers of technological development. I say one of because currently there is still China with very rapid development.

Which is why there will be no business as usual turning point after the war.
Russia survived without the west, while Europe is sliding down in the front of our eyes.
What is the most shocking in this whole scenario is the fact, that Putin predicted every single outcome almost 20 years ago - at Munich security conference of 2007. He has told the Germans back then what will be the end result of the US meddling in EU affairs.
He was 100% right.

Russia has an excellent geographical location. On the other side it has huge China, and further away other Asian countries developing rapidly. Direct connection with Asia.

The greatest irony, however, is that the war and sanctions that were supposed to destroy Russia gave it a very big boost in development. The war itself also gave it a big development, in terms of military and technology. Huge development of all military means, including drones, etc. It seems that large military expenditures support economic development. And so on. In general, they should not get along with the West, they are currently on the path of incredible economic and military development, and are even growing demographically.

I doubt that they only delivered just the mail bag

Not every time of course, but I remember a TV doco from the 1980s showing the Soviet forces and they showed an Mi-8 delivering one box of post and a box or two of ammo to a base on the top of a small hill. They would have regular deliveries and I guess sometimes they took substantial loads, but often they brought a few people or took a few people away and post. It is not like it was on the front line and the amount of ammo being used up could be replaced with the occasional delivery of boxes of grenades or small arms ammo.

Russia has no option other than to invest heavily in its own turbine production. Aircraft engines of this sort are the logical result. Nobody would assign billions needed for its creation lacking money from a giant gas and oil business.

When the Energy sector and the Military want these turbines for pumping stations and aircraft respectively, then funding becomes easy to get to make these things...

The greatest irony, however, is that the war and sanctions that were supposed to destroy Russia gave it a very big boost in development.

The west imposed sanctions because of their inflated ego thinking that Russia is dependent on the west and they thought taking that away would destroy Russia and get them to crawl back and agree to any terms. The sanctions have made Russia realise that the west does have technology but Russia can actually do it better and does not need to rely on the west for anything at all... certainly not lectures on morals and ethics... which the west really knows very little about.

The separation of the west from Russia has created BRICS which is a chance for the rest of the world to progress and develop without going hat in hand to the west and take their bullshit to get lease or loan their technology to grow and develop. The west has shown if they will sanction Russia and China to stop their development, of course they will sanction or bomb anyone...

Which transport aircraft is actually being built?

This is the shortest list because many of the planes to be made require new engines so they are waiting for serial production of engines to start... which requires testing and certification.

Which transport aircraft is actually being developed..?

This list is huge, but not all developed aircraft will be commercially successful.

Some are being delayed because there wont be an engine ready for them and developing them now means another delay waiting for the engines to be ready.

Which engines are actually being built in series at the moment..?

Production is expanding and a large number of engines are getting close to certification and serial production.

Which engines are actually being developed at the moment..?

Not just engine makers, but even factories wanting to make aircraft are developing engines, including copies of currently used engines...

Garry I think the idea of parts of the Ukraine that rejoin Russia should be "demilitarised" is LOOOOOOOONG gone.
I think you misunderstand aspects of it all.

Is West Coast USA demilitarised for Russia's benefit? What about Germany and France?

The Ukraine has been Russian for the past 1100 yrs, save for the invasions of Poland, Germany and Genghis Khan.
Some Western Ukrainian areas have been poisoned into Nazism and similar Zelensky style Fascism.

Russia seeks to build a stable Europe which may mean de-mil/buffer zones on the former Pukraine's borders and Baltics/E Eur that borders the Pukraine and Russia.

Other than that, GAYTO can really go suck cock.

I suspect for a while, Russian controlled Pukrainian areas will have to be HEAVILY militarised. Until GAYTO comes to it's senses and stops being the puppet of fascist forces in Washington, Davos, Brussels, London and Wall St.

Which transport aircraft is actually being built?
1: IL-76MD-90A ~6/year
2: ...

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:1: Il-212
2: An-124 (production restart, import substituted)

You are missing his point... the Il-212 is not actually being built right now and nor is the An-124.

The Il-114 can't be too far away and An-124s can be refurbished and taken out of storage for use.

the Il-212 will take a while to be adapted to the new engines and their location, but as the engines for the Il-112V are also used on the Il-114 and Ladoga and Baikal and Mi-38 and Altius drones then I guess they are ready for serial production so fitting them to the Il-112V should actually be the fastest solution to get an An-24/26 replacement into serial production.

10: SM-100 low bypass turbofan engine (Salyut) being developed for the modernisation of the Yak-130 training aircraft. Two years ago a presentation was shown with a potential high Turbopass derivative (4 to 5 tons takeoff thrust) for large drones, regional airliners (40 to 50 passengers) and business jets

Quite likely the SM-100 engine will be used in the Yak-130 (Twin) and the MiG-UTS (single) trainers, but a wide range of other aircraft could use such an engine including the Tu-324...

Not exactly aircraft factory, but the Ural civil aviation plant opened an engine design bureau in Sankt Petersburg

The factory essentially making the Austrian Diamond single and twin engined light trainer is continuing to make said aircraft and is making the engine for it because they were not happy with Klimovs progress... I doubt such an engine would be more important than the other engines Klimov is working on at the moment...

Garry I think the idea of parts of the Ukraine that rejoin Russia should be "demilitarised" is LOOOOOOOONG gone.

The parts of the Ukraine who do not join the Russian Federation are the regions going to be demilitarised, and I think Russia should therefore keep the other regions that join the Russian Federation be kept relatively demilitarised to prevent friction.

Is West Coast USA demilitarised for Russia's benefit? What about Germany and France?

If Russia was asked by Alaska and Hawaii to join the Russian Federation, to prevent the US getting too upset they could agree to joining the RF but promise not to base military forces there right away... you know... the the US doesn't in Europe... Ukraine and Georgia and Finland etc etc.

Other than that, GAYTO can really go suck cock.

They have proven themselves incapable of negotiation or agreement so they really have no one to blame but themselves when Russia just gets the job done with their military.

I would expect Russian troops to keep the peace throughout the Ukrainian territory while referendums and elections can be held. They will get the options Russia approves of for her security. That is a better deal than they ever offered to their own people in the East of their country.

In fact a minsk in reverse where these Ukrainian regions become an autonomous region inside the Russian Federation where Russian troops man their border with Europe would be funny...

A bit off topic, but...exactly, a the condition for demilitarisation were for Ukraine, not for Russia.

If lump Ukraine, however big it is when this ends, is to be fully demilitarised then it would need all sorts of security guarantees from Russia but I suspect their greatest fear would be that Russia would then just invade when they are fully disarmed, and one way to assure them that they have no interest in conquering the rest of the Ukraine would be to voluntarily demilitarise the new Russian regions. There is no huge advantage to basing lots of forces on the borders unless the conflict is not properly solved and the west continues its terrorist attacks... in which basing forces there would be useful... but placing military production there would just make it horribly vulnerable.

There is plenty of scope for civilian construction and production to be located there of course, I and not suggesting they be ignored in terms of production for the country... this region probably has a lot to contribute.

It's not being hypocritical, it's the difference between being imposed conditions after causing problems and losing a war and being the winning country.

It is putting your testicles in the hands of the enemy... they have plenty of non military things that need to be produced that could be made there, any new military production should be moved beyond the Ural mountains...

Germany does not have military bases in the US, but US has military bases in Germany (and soviet union used to have military bases in East Germany).

If Russia starts acting like the US then the world has a bleak future indeed.

DNR, LNR Zaporozhye and Kherson regions are as Russian as Crimea, Rostov, or Leningrad oblasts.

The people have the right to choose, I have no problem with that... but is it sensible to move military production closer to the enemy... that isn't just going to disappear when this conflict ends?

The same thing is valid for Crimea (even if most western countries already see it as a "fait accompli"), but currently Russia is building military ships in Crimea shipyards without caring about the west.

The Crimea already has a major military base, producing ships for the navy in those shipyards makes sense, but there is enough demand for civilian vessels that you could fund a dozen or more shipyards along the Black Sea coast and none of them need to be working on military shipping.

[quote]
Since after 2029 Russia should build (in addition to military transport aircrafts and tanker aircrafts) also about 100 airliners per year (72 MC21+20 SJ100+ 10 TU-214)+ regional jets + fighter jets and helicopters + strategic bombers + special role aircrafts + Be-200, a couple more aircraft plants and some aerospace components industries (possibly also production branches of other Russian firms) in Novorossia (and eventually Malorossia) will be more than useful.

Which is why light numbers aircraft are important... the MiG-UTS and MiG-35 for example could increase raw production numbers significantly and provide numbers in the air improving performance and capability.

[quote]
And the only ones are il-212 and An-124.

The An-124 is being Russianised, but while the factory that makes them would love it to go into serial production I would think the Slon project is a higher priority and that part of the Slon programme would be twin and quad engine models for An-22 and An-124 niche roles.

A factory that can produce new An-124s would be ideal for building the first few prototypes of each type of new aircraft... which they could build while refurbishing aircraft from storage and then the aircraft that are currently operational... by the time they have done all those it will be time to make extra Slon prototypes for fast track testing and initial serial production tests... and then they can start making them.

They will have been working on Il-106 type aircraft for decades now and with super computers they could have tested all sorts of shapes and structures and designs, together with operational experience with An-124s and An-22s around the world for the last few decades as well they should have plenty of information to work with.

Added to that there will be future requirements they will have to cater to, like something that can carry a space shuttle or giant fuel tanks for space craft.

Perhaps even something to move around the hazel nut groves....

Also I would say the Il-114 is getting very close to production too... they seem happy with the power and reliability of the engines now, which was about the only stumbling block.

All the others are speculations or previously announced but then delayed plans (including Tu-330 or Il-276)

Those two types were mainly suggested because they are adaptations of existing operational types and the adaptation would not be fundamental or risky and should lead to the fastest possible solution to the problem of the AN-12 being worn out and dangerous.

The il-106 has never been officially restarted.

The work done developing the aircraft wont simply be thrown away and it will likely be used as the basis for the Slon project in twin and quad engine configurations...

I wonder what effect the over wing configuration has on cruise performance for the An-72 and Il-212... because adding it to the Il-276 and perhaps the twin engined Slon would be rather interesting.

The ability to trim the thrust could have a significant effect on drag in flight and allow the aircraft to cruise rather more efficiently as well as creating extra lift during landing or taking off.

With a motor boat angling the prop wash downwards helps lift the boat out of the water massively reducing drag and increasing top speed and performance while reducing fuel burn. Being able to angle the jet wash should enable lower drag flight which should improve performance and increase range and speed of the aircraft.

The question would be, would they be interested in doing that with the twin Slon and the twin Il-276 as well as the An-72 replacement aircraft?

Now they do not care anymore about the IP issue, but yeah maybe in 2028 they will produce An-124 with an Ilyushin name.

Then development of the PD-35s is worthless because it is too powerful for the An-124. Fitting the An-124 with two PD-35s would reduce performance with 70 tons of thrust compared with just under 100 tons of thrust for the current aircraft. That would make it an An-22 payload range platform. Putting four PD-35s will give it 140 tons of thrust which would make it a 180 ton payload type but with old aerodynamics and materials and design.

It makes sense to upgrade the An-124 so it can continue to be used because it is the quickest solution, but the long term solution is a new design that hopefully fills the gaps left by the An-22 and An-124 so the An-124 can continue to be used till it is used up.

I fully agree that there is a need of an aircraft with 80 tons payload and similar characteristics as the 1990s il-106 project, but there is no official or unofficial info that any work has been done on it.

That means any similar aircraft will not be ready before at least 2035.

When they developed the An-124 they needed new engines, though they probably could have developed a bigger An-22 with six engines perhaps for the 120 ton payload role.

New engines with a new plane to take advantage of the new technology and materials of the time.

A slon and slon jnr makes sense.

About the Il-106. Isn't it currently being re-developed as the PAK-VTA?

The Slon programme... using the PD-35 engines and likely including a twin and quad engined design.

Also the Il-276 is being developed right now? I think it was a stop-start affair with the Indians, but Ilyushin is still working on the project for the VTA?

I would expect they are using the digital drawings of the Il-476 and reducing the wing and fuselage and looking at a twin engine arrangement.

I would hope they consider an over wing arrangement for rough field operations but have never seen an image or model of that for this design.

Their priority seems to be boosting production of the Il-476 and its modifications... building extra factories to make extra engines and extra airframes that could start with a few Il-276 prototypes and then work on Il-476s to get numbers made quicker would make sense. As development continues with the Il-276 they can make extra examples till they finalise their serial design and start producing Il-276s. By that time they can decide if they need more production facilities for both aircraft or not... the Il-276 will likely be an Il-476 with shorter fuselage and smaller wings with two engines instead of four. It shouldn't take a decade.

The whole point of scaling down an existing serially produced model is to speed up development and getting it into production faster.

The Il-112 is definitely dead and re-developed as the Il-212 with turbofans - also a current development project.

The Il-112V needed a more reliable more powerful engine and further work on the Il-114 seems to have achieved that, though I think the Il-212 would be created first because it can replace the An-26 and An-72.

The Il-114 is replacing the An-24.

The Il-114 and "Baikal" and also "Ladoga" is not really in the game as military transports for now but rather being developed as regional airliners.

The Il-114 seems to be the military choice to replace the An-24. The Baikal and Ladoga will likely be civilian equivalents of the An-2 and An-24.

As far as il-276, the last communication was from a few years ago which said that there should have been a competition between il-276 and Tu-330 and the winner of such competition should have been announced after a few months and developed as An-12 replacement.
No new info on the topic in the meanwhile.

That is understandable though isn't it... I would say Tupolev is more interested in getting the Tu-214 improved and into serial production and Ilyusion is likely more worried about getting the Il-476 running.

I would say Illyusion has the advantage because the Il-476 is already a transport plane so there is no need to expand the fuselage, and the avionics and systems should be the same...

As far as PAK-VTA, the info about it are a mess. One article mentioned the il-106, another mentioned the Slon, in another they mixed a requirement for 80 tons payload at 5000 km (same as the original plan for the il-106) and a few lines below a max payload of 180 tons (more than the An-124).

The released information is a bit messed up, but I would guess that the Il-106 was designed to replace the An-22 which is still a valuable thing, and the Slon was supposed to replace the An-124 at the high end with its four PD-35 engines giving it about as much engine power as the An-225.

I would say Il-106 and Slon have probably merged into the PAK VTA programme with a single aircraft design that is scaled to the jobs of An-22 and An-124+ replacement so it might be a totally new design or an improved Il-106 design scaled to a twin engined and four engined design with the PD-35 engines.

They will be waiting for the PD-35 engines so there is no value in rushing them right now and the gap can be filled by refurbishing in service An-124s and taking An-124s out of storage and getting them up to Russian spec, but once that is all done a prototype or four could be built of both types... with all the An-124s in use by then the twin engined model would most likely be the most sought after aircraft... but then the Russian space industry might be wanting to fly some large things around so maybe the An-225 replacement with a H tail might get made first, but the Twin and four engined models can be made in parallel or one after the other... most likely the twin will replace the An-124 in lighter roles where it will be cheaper.

The An-124s can continue to operate for a few decades at least but there is no value in my opinion in making more new aircraft when it is time to start making its new replacement.

The twin engined PAK TA should be very popular... likely much better performance than the C-17 and most likely for a tiny fraction of the price.

Equally that is why the An-72 failed to replace the An-24 and An-26, and while the Il-212 can do the job of all three and will be made I think the Il-112V will also be made because in commercial terms the prop driven aircraft is going to be several times cheaper to fuel... and while the military wont be too upset about that, the civilian operators are going to make money on that.

It is also the reason no replacement for the An-2 ever succeeded... the different attempts to replace it could never do it at such low prices or it didn't match the performance in some areas that were important to the operators.

Furthermore even the cargo bay sizes are not clear. I almost believe journalists just mixed various staff from the past without really understanding what they were talking about.

For a while Eehnie was talking about supersonic large transports... which does not really make sense... if something has to get there that fast it is probably already delivered by Hazelnut.

In some articles about Pak-VTA they also showed a picture of the myasichev M60.

To be fair the PAK VTA would be a programme like the PAK FA and PAK DP and most of the time it is not 100% certain who would win.

Even with the models of the MiG light 5th gen fighter I would say they clearly have funding but if Yakovlev or Sukhoi can come up with something better or cheaper or more effective then there is no reason for them to take the plane that MiG make for them.

The Su-25 was very successful and was a Sukhoi funded project at a time when dedicated air to ground versions of MiG-21 and MiG-29s were being proposed for the CAS role and they essentially replaced the MiG-27 and Su-17 in the light attack role...

If the Su-75 turns out to be amazing or the Yak-67 or MiG-whatever they might call it they have choices.

With transport planes of course the number of design bureaus capable of doing the job and with the available engineers and skills means there are not going to be dozens of options and tricks like scaled versions to cover two roles by using two or four engines will certainly help. Having totally different aircraft is not an advantage.

Having designs that need to be made from scratch does not help either... the MiG-UTS and Il-114 and Il-112V and even the development of the Il-112V... the Il-212, as well as the Il-276 and Il-476 are building on existing designs and parts and systems commonality to do the same sort of thing with different max payload weights over different distances.

The delay in getting the PD-35 fully developed and serially produced is an opportunity to design and build new aircraft designs to take advantage of the power and performance of the new engines.

As i said before this is normal work for future project teams.

True, but why bother with getting the PD-35 ready for service by perhaps 2030 if there are not going to be any aircraft using it.

There is supposed to be a wide bodied airliner... well could that be incorporated into the needs of the Slon... there are no wide bodied cargo planes AFAIK except the Guppy, but lifting bodies of enlarged shapes would be good for transport aircraft I would expect...

What we know for sure is instead that Ilyushin has been working seriously on modernisation, complete import substitutions and production restart (not just repair and modernisation of mothballed aircrafts) of An-124.

A factory that can make An-124s could also make Slons.

The factory to make the White Swans is also designed to be used to make PAK DAs.

Not an accident of fluke... by design.

The Slon might incorporate more composite materials and other exotics.

For all we know it might be a flying wing based on the PAK DA, but I rather doubt it...

So either they start producing in 3 years new An-124 or they wait at least 10 years for a successor with just repairing of mothballed An-124 in the meanwhile.

I hope not. That Soviet era dinosaur should not be the future of Russian heavy transport aviation.

I hope the facilities designed to make D-18TM engines can be quickly converted to make PD-35s... with the number of AN-124s they have and have in storage I don't think they would need any new build aircraft of that type. On the contrary a lighter cheaper twin engined design that is more modern should sell rather well on the international market and be very popular in Russia and beyond.

With two PD-35 we are talking about an aircraft with the same cargo bay cross section or better than the An-124 and three quarters the engine power with the lower drag and reduced weight of only two engines...