Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

eehnie wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:For military purposes the An-2 has too low service ceiling. 4500m means the aircraft can not fly avoiding manpads.
In the role of transport aircraft, the An-2 and the current aircrafts of its size cathegory lack the payload necessary to be useful today.
In the role of airliner aircraft, the An-2 lacks the capacity to make its use profitable today.
In overall terms this concept is outdated today.

All it is reflected in the low number of orders of the successors of the An-2 in the last decades.

Of course the units in service still are used, but in the refered to the Russian Armed Forces very likely are under exhaustion in the mid-term and will not have replacement with aircrafts of its size cathegory. In this aircraft cathegory helicopters dominate.

It is only $1.5m per unit, that is the selling point.  There are many countries that cannot afford more but still need this capability.  

Taking into account the size of most of the countries, they are not tempted by the opton of longer range with really minimal payload.

These countries tend to order helicopters. Russia prepared a good range of models to offer in the size cathegories around the size of the An-2:

Ka-27 + Mi-8 families
Ka-60/62
Mi-Ansat
Ka-226

All them more successful than the aircrafts of the list of my previous comment, or with better prospect (in the case of the Ka-60/62

None of those helicopters have the range of An-2 and nowhere near the TVS 2DTS. When TVS 2DTS comes into production and start selling I will be there to remind you to eat your words lol

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Taking into account the size of most of the countries, they are not tempted by the opton of longer range with really minimal payload.

These countries tend to order helicopters. Russia prepared a good range of models to offer in the size cathegories around the size of the An-2:

Ka-27 + Mi-8 families
Ka-60/62
Mi-Ansat
Ka-226

All them more successful than the aircrafts of the list of my previous comment, or with better prospect (in the case of the Ka-60/62

The An-2 stopped production in 2001 with over 18,000 units produced.  

What production are you counting between 1991 and 2001?

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:Taking into account the size of most of the countries, they are not tempted by the opton of longer range with really minimal payload.

These countries tend to order helicopters. Russia prepared a good range of models to offer in the size cathegories around the size of the An-2:

Ka-27 + Mi-8 families
Ka-60/62
Mi-Ansat
Ka-226

All them more successful than the aircrafts of the list of my previous comment, or with better prospect (in the case of the Ka-60/62

None of those helicopters have the range of An-2 and nowhere near the TVS 2DTS. When TVS 2DTS comes into production and start selling I will be there to remind you to eat your words lol

The range and other features of the veteran An-2 are perfectly matched by modern helicopters, that aditionally can avoid manpads. Then, if someone must begin eating own words, you can begin first.

Specifications (An-2)
Antonov An-2
Data from Biplanes, Triplanes, and Seaplanes[1]
General characteristics
Crew: 1–2
Capacity: 12 passengers
Length: 12.4 m (40 ft 8 in)
Wingspan:
Upper wing: 18.2 m (59 ft 8 in)
Lower wing: 14.2 m (46 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.1 m (13 ft)
Wing area: 71.52 m² (769.8 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,300 kg (7,300 lb)
Useful load: 2,140 kg (4,700 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (12,000 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Shvetsov ASh-62IR 9-cylinder supercharged radial engine, 750 kW (1,000 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 258 km/h (139 kn, 160 mph)
Cruise speed: 190 km/h (100 kn, 120 mph)
Stall speed: ~50 km/h (26 knots, 30 mph)
Range: 845 km (456 nmi, 525 mi)
Service ceiling: 4,500 m (14,750 ft)
Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (700 ft/min)
Power/mass: 0.136 kW/kg (0.083 hp/lb)

Specifications
Profile Kamov Ka-60 Kasatka.png
Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2003–2004,[1] Russian Helicopters[8]
General characteristics
Crew: 1–2
Capacity: ** 12–15 passengers (Ka-62)
14 infantry troops or 6 stretchers
Internal 2,000 kg (4,400 lb)
External 2,500 kg (5,500 lb)
Length: 15.60 m (51.2 ft)
Rotor diameter: 13.50 m (44.3 ft)
Height: 4.60 m (15.1 ft)
Disc area: 143.10 m² (1,540.3 sq ft)
Max. takeoff weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Turbomeca Ardiden 3G turboshaft, 1,776 shp (1,324 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 308 km/h (191 mph; 166 kn)
Cruise speed: 290 km/h (180 mph; 160 kn)
Range: 770 km (480 mi; 420 nmi) with main tanks
Service ceiling: 5,700 m (18,700 ft) operational, 3,300 m (10,800 ft) hover

eehnie wrote:
What production are you counting between 1991 and 2001?

China

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:Taking into account the size of most of the countries, they are not tempted by the opton of longer range with really minimal payload.

These countries tend to order helicopters. Russia prepared a good range of models to offer in the size cathegories around the size of the An-2:

Ka-27 + Mi-8 families
Ka-60/62
Mi-Ansat
Ka-226

All them more successful than the aircrafts of the list of my previous comment, or with better prospect (in the case of the Ka-60/62

None of those helicopters have the range of An-2 and nowhere near the TVS 2DTS. When TVS 2DTS comes into production and start selling I will be there to remind you to eat your words lol

The range and other features of the veteran An-2 are perfectly matched by modern helicopters, that aditionally can avoid manpads. Then, if someone must begin eating own words, you can begin first.

Specifications (An-2)
Antonov An-2
Data from Biplanes, Triplanes, and Seaplanes[1]
General characteristics
Crew: 1–2
Capacity: 12 passengers
Length: 12.4 m (40 ft 8 in)
Wingspan:
Upper wing: 18.2 m (59 ft 8 in)
Lower wing: 14.2 m (46 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.1 m (13 ft)
Wing area: 71.52 m² (769.8 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,300 kg (7,300 lb)
Useful load: 2,140 kg (4,700 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (12,000 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Shvetsov ASh-62IR 9-cylinder supercharged radial engine, 750 kW (1,000 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 258 km/h (139 kn, 160 mph)
Cruise speed: 190 km/h (100 kn, 120 mph)
Stall speed: ~50 km/h (26 knots, 30 mph)
Range: 845 km (456 nmi, 525 mi)
Service ceiling: 4,500 m (14,750 ft)
Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (700 ft/min)
Power/mass: 0.136 kW/kg (0.083 hp/lb)

Specifications
Profile Kamov Ka-60 Kasatka.png
Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2003–2004,[1] Russian Helicopters[8]
General characteristics
Crew: 1–2
Capacity: ** 12–15 passengers (Ka-62)
14 infantry troops or 6 stretchers
Internal 2,000 kg (4,400 lb)
External 2,500 kg (5,500 lb)
Length: 15.60 m (51.2 ft)
Rotor diameter: 13.50 m (44.3 ft)
Height: 4.60 m (15.1 ft)
Disc area: 143.10 m² (1,540.3 sq ft)
Max. takeoff weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Turbomeca Ardiden 3G turboshaft, 1,776 shp (1,324 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 308 km/h (191 mph; 166 kn)
Cruise speed: 290 km/h (180 mph; 160 kn)
Range: 770 km (480 mi; 420 nmi) with main tanks
Service ceiling: 5,700 m (18,700 ft) operational, 3,300 m (10,800 ft) hover

You choose the firzt ever model stats but what about upgraded models many have had upgrades and change of fuel type. What about the other helicopters you mentioned eehnie? Compare there stats and You choose a helicopter that isn't even fully in production how many ka-60 are in service but seeing as you're choosing such a helicopter in its current stage of production then why don't you compare it with the TVS 2DTS and see how it compares I think you'll find it doesn't come close so you will be doing the eating. And of course eehnie you know better than the designers and Rostec who see the need for this type of aircraft as they are planning on putting it into production maybe just maybe they know the market better than you or I.

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:
What production are you counting between 1991 and 2001?

China  

This seems to be the production of the An-2.

https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-2

Serial production of the An-2 aircraft was conducted
1949-1963 - at the Aviation Plant No. 473 in Kiev, 3339 vehicles were produced.
1959-2002 - at the aircraft factory WSK PZL-Mielec in Poland, produced 11 915 cars.
1965-1971 - at Dolgoprudnensk Machine-Building Plant (Dolgoprudny, MO.), 506 An-2M modification machines were produced.
1956-1968 - at the aircraft plant No. 320 in Nanchang (now NAMC - Nanhang Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation) in China, 727 machines were launched under the name "Fong Shu-2".
1970 - 2013 - more than 300 machines under the name "Yunshu-zhi-5" (Y-5) were produced at the aircraft factory in Shijiazhuang (now SAMC-Shijiazhuang Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation) in China.

The production of the An-2 in the Soviet Union was stopped in 1971, it is coincident with the very low number of units of An-2 present in the Russian Armed Forces produced since 1971. Since this data the aircraft has not been of the interest of the Russian Armed Forces for new purchases.

The main production of the aircraft seems done in Poland. The production since 1991 would be very low.
Also the production in China branded like Y-5 seems low, and it has been stopped in 2013. The demand of the Chinese aircraft has been low also in the last decades.

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:Taking into account the size of most of the countries, they are not tempted by the opton of longer range with really minimal payload.

These countries tend to order helicopters. Russia prepared a good range of models to offer in the size cathegories around the size of the An-2:

Ka-27 + Mi-8 families
Ka-60/62
Mi-Ansat
Ka-226

All them more successful than the aircrafts of the list of my previous comment, or with better prospect (in the case of the Ka-60/62

None of those helicopters have the range of An-2 and nowhere near the TVS 2DTS. When TVS 2DTS comes into production and start selling I will be there to remind you to eat your words lol

The range and other features of the veteran An-2 are perfectly matched by modern helicopters, that aditionally can avoid manpads. Then, if someone must begin eating own words, you can begin first.

Specifications (An-2)
Antonov An-2
Data from Biplanes, Triplanes, and Seaplanes[1]
General characteristics
Crew: 1–2
Capacity: 12 passengers
Length: 12.4 m (40 ft 8 in)
Wingspan:
Upper wing: 18.2 m (59 ft 8 in)
Lower wing: 14.2 m (46 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.1 m (13 ft)
Wing area: 71.52 m² (769.8 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,300 kg (7,300 lb)
Useful load: 2,140 kg (4,700 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (12,000 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Shvetsov ASh-62IR 9-cylinder supercharged radial engine, 750 kW (1,000 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 258 km/h (139 kn, 160 mph)
Cruise speed: 190 km/h (100 kn, 120 mph)
Stall speed: ~50 km/h (26 knots, 30 mph)
Range: 845 km (456 nmi, 525 mi)
Service ceiling: 4,500 m (14,750 ft)
Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (700 ft/min)
Power/mass: 0.136 kW/kg (0.083 hp/lb)

Specifications
Profile Kamov Ka-60 Kasatka.png
Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2003–2004,[1] Russian Helicopters[8]
General characteristics
Crew: 1–2
Capacity: ** 12–15 passengers (Ka-62)
14 infantry troops or 6 stretchers
Internal 2,000 kg (4,400 lb)
External 2,500 kg (5,500 lb)
Length: 15.60 m (51.2 ft)
Rotor diameter: 13.50 m (44.3 ft)
Height: 4.60 m (15.1 ft)
Disc area: 143.10 m² (1,540.3 sq ft)
Max. takeoff weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Turbomeca Ardiden 3G turboshaft, 1,776 shp (1,324 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 308 km/h (191 mph; 166 kn)
Cruise speed: 290 km/h (180 mph; 160 kn)
Range: 770 km (480 mi; 420 nmi) with main tanks
Service ceiling: 5,700 m (18,700 ft) operational, 3,300 m (10,800 ft) hover

You choose the firzt ever model stats but what about upgraded models many have had upgrades and change of fuel type. What about the other helicopters you mentioned eehnie? Compare there stats and You choose a helicopter that isn't even fully in production how many ka-60 are in service but seeing as you're choosing such a helicopter in its current stage of production then why don't you compare it with the TVS 2DTS and see how it compares I think you'll find it doesn't come close so you will be doing the eating. And of course eehnie you know better than the designers and Rostec who see the need for this type of aircraft as they are planning on putting it into production maybe just maybe they know the market better than you or I.

Another one:

Specifications (Mil-17-1A2)
Data from [135]
General characteristics
Crew: Three: two pilots and one engineer
Capacity: 24 troops or 12 stretchers or 4,000 kg (8,820 lb) cargo internally /5,000 kg (11,023 lb) externally slung.
Length: 18.465 m (60 ft 7 in)
Rotor diameter: 21.25 m (69 ft 10½ in)
Height: 4.76 m (15 ft 7¼ in)
Disc area: 356 m² (3,834 ft²)
Empty weight: 7,489 kg (16,510 lb)
Loaded weight: 11,100 kg (24,470 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,000 kg (28,660 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft, 2,400 hp () each
Performance
Maximum speed: 280 km/h (151 knots, 174 mph)
Cruise speed: 260 km/h
Range: 800 km (431 nmi, 497 mi) (with main fuel tanks)
Service ceiling: 6,000 m (19,690 ft)
Rate of climb: 8 m/s[citation needed] (1,575 ft/min)

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:Taking into account the size of most of the countries, they are not tempted by the opton of longer range with really minimal payload.

These countries tend to order helicopters. Russia prepared a good range of models to offer in the size cathegories around the size of the An-2:

Ka-27 + Mi-8 families
Ka-60/62
Mi-Ansat
Ka-226

All them more successful than the aircrafts of the list of my previous comment, or with better prospect (in the case of the Ka-60/62

None of those helicopters have the range of An-2 and nowhere near the TVS 2DTS. When TVS 2DTS comes into production and start selling I will be there to remind you to eat your words lol

The range and other features of the veteran An-2 are perfectly matched by modern helicopters, that aditionally can avoid manpads. Then, if someone must begin eating own words, you can begin first.

Specifications (An-2)
Antonov An-2
Data from Biplanes, Triplanes, and Seaplanes[1]
General characteristics
Crew: 1–2
Capacity: 12 passengers
Length: 12.4 m (40 ft 8 in)
Wingspan:
Upper wing: 18.2 m (59 ft 8 in)
Lower wing: 14.2 m (46 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.1 m (13 ft)
Wing area: 71.52 m² (769.8 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,300 kg (7,300 lb)
Useful load: 2,140 kg (4,700 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (12,000 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Shvetsov ASh-62IR 9-cylinder supercharged radial engine, 750 kW (1,000 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 258 km/h (139 kn, 160 mph)
Cruise speed: 190 km/h (100 kn, 120 mph)
Stall speed: ~50 km/h (26 knots, 30 mph)
Range: 845 km (456 nmi, 525 mi)
Service ceiling: 4,500 m (14,750 ft)
Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (700 ft/min)
Power/mass: 0.136 kW/kg (0.083 hp/lb)

Specifications
Profile Kamov Ka-60 Kasatka.png
Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2003–2004,[1] Russian Helicopters[8]
General characteristics
Crew: 1–2
Capacity: ** 12–15 passengers (Ka-62)
14 infantry troops or 6 stretchers
Internal 2,000 kg (4,400 lb)
External 2,500 kg (5,500 lb)
Length: 15.60 m (51.2 ft)
Rotor diameter: 13.50 m (44.3 ft)
Height: 4.60 m (15.1 ft)
Disc area: 143.10 m² (1,540.3 sq ft)
Max. takeoff weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Turbomeca Ardiden 3G turboshaft, 1,776 shp (1,324 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 308 km/h (191 mph; 166 kn)
Cruise speed: 290 km/h (180 mph; 160 kn)
Range: 770 km (480 mi; 420 nmi) with main tanks
Service ceiling: 5,700 m (18,700 ft) operational, 3,300 m (10,800 ft) hover

You choose the firzt ever model stats but what about upgraded models many have had upgrades and change of fuel type. What about the other helicopters you mentioned eehnie? Compare there stats and You choose a helicopter that isn't even fully in production how many ka-60 are in service but seeing as you're choosing such a helicopter in its current stage of production then why don't you compare it with the TVS 2DTS and see how it compares I think you'll find it doesn't come close so you will be doing the eating. And of course eehnie you know better than the designers and Rostec who see the need for this type of aircraft as they are planning on putting it into production maybe just maybe they know the market better than you or I.

Another one:

Specifications (Mil-17-1A2)
Data from [135]
General characteristics
Crew: Three: two pilots and one engineer
Capacity: 24 troops or 12 stretchers or 4,000 kg (8,820 lb) cargo internally /5,000 kg (11,023 lb) externally slung.
Length: 18.465 m (60 ft 7 in)
Rotor diameter: 21.25 m (69 ft 10½ in)
Height: 4.76 m (15 ft 7¼ in)
Disc area: 356 m² (3,834 ft²)
Empty weight: 7,489 kg (16,510 lb)
Loaded weight: 11,100 kg (24,470 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,000 kg (28,660 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft, 2,400 hp () each
Performance
Maximum speed: 280 km/h (151 knots, 174 mph)
Cruise speed: 260 km/h
Range: 800 km (431 nmi, 497 mi) (with main fuel tanks)
Service ceiling: 6,000 m (19,690 ft)
Rate of climb: 8 m/s[citation needed] (1,575 ft/min)

Forgot the Ansat and ka-226. Still mi-17 doesn't have the range of TVS 2DTS. This is the new replacement and my original post did state is their a replacement and this is it. You still fail to see that there's a market for this type of aircraft. But like I said eehnie the Oracle knows best. Better than Rostec.

d_taddei2 wrote:Forgot the Ansat and ka-226. Still mi-17 doesn't have the range of TVS 2DTS. This is the new replacement and my original post did state is their a replacement and this is it. You still fail to see that there's a market for this type of aircraft. But like I said eehnie the Oracle knows best. Better than Rostec.

No, I do not fail. There are not data, real data, from the markets that allow to think in a success of this new variant(?). Neither in Russia, neither outside of Russia. Successful regional aircrafts in the last decades are at least of he size cathegory of the Su-Superjet. This is the reality.

With the time I had here similar discussions about the following aircrafts:

Rysachok
Be-200
SR-10
Il-112 (pending solution)

And I did not fail. It is about to apply correctly the knowledge gained in the Engineering School. Only that.

If the things go by logical terms:

Diamond DA42: Seems likely to fail to be adopted by the Russian Armed Forces.
L-410: Seems likely to have not a successful return to production in Russia.
TVS 2DTS variant of the An-2: Seems likely to repeat not the success of the previous variants neither for military nor civil purposes.

eehnie wrote:

The main production of the aircraft seems done in Poland. The production since 1991 would be very low.
Also the production in China branded like Y-5 seems low, and it has been stopped in 2013. The demand of the Chinese aircraft has been low also in the last decades.

China built a thousand Y-5 of varying types.  I didn't know Poland made them so long.  There is still a market for this aircraft with over 700 being flown.  A new and improved model could sell well. The aircraft is popular for crop dusting, bush pilots and parachuting thanks to it's slow speed characteristics. The DOSAFF and VVD would have an order book for 300 of a new aircraft.  I did most of my training jumps from the legendary An-2.  My uncle still owns one used for crop dusting  The farms need it for its high capacity and slow speed.  I could see the market go into the thousands.  It is not a competitor of helicopters which comes at a much higher price.  It is not ordered heavily today because it has outdated parts, this will fix that.

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Forgot the Ansat and ka-226. Still mi-17 doesn't have the range of TVS 2DTS. This is the new replacement and my original post did state is their a replacement and this is it. You still fail to see that there's a market for this type of aircraft. But like I said eehnie the Oracle knows best. Better than Rostec.

No, I do not fail. There are not data, real data, from the markets that allow to think in a success of this new variant(?). Neither in Russia, neither outside of Russia. Successful regional aircrafts in the last decades are at least of he size cathegory of the Su-Superjet. This is the reality.

With the time I had here similar discussions about the following aircrafts:

Rysachok
Be-200
SR-10
Il-112 (pending solution)

And I did not fail. It is about to apply correctly the knowledge gained in the Engineering School. Only that.

If the things go by logical terms:

Diamond DA42: Seems likely to fail to be adopted by the Russian Armed Forces.
L-410: Seems likely to have not a successful return to production in Russia.
TVS 2DTS variant of the An-2: Seems likely to repeat not the success of the previous variants neither for military nor civil purposes.

You eehnie the Oracle has failef and FAIL massively.
An-2 is a successful aircraft it's long continued service and number produced is a testament to that

Rostec have seen the need and the gap in the market for such a replacement hence the investment into building a facility.

Vladimir79 also brought up another valid point the cost is much cheaper. As well roles. The su superjet is a completely different aircraft for a different role I can believe your suggesting that it's in the same league.

As for L410 there's new version being planned
L-410NG although not built in Russia but had its russian certificate signed off last year. And with Russia in the process of building the facilities for the TVS 2DTS as well sanctions getting thrown at them constantly these are the reasons there not producing L410

The Chinese Y-12 which is similar and in comparison to L410 is still in production and used by a multitude of countries and organisations

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

The main production of the aircraft seems done in Poland. The production since 1991 would be very low.
Also the production in China branded like Y-5 seems low, and it has been stopped in 2013. The demand of the Chinese aircraft has been low also in the last decades.

China built a thousand Y-5 of varying types.  I didn't know Poland made them so long.  There is still a market for this aircraft with over 700 being flown.  A new and improved model could sell well. The aircraft is popular for crop dusting, bush pilots and parachuting thanks to it's slow speed characteristics. The DOSAFF and VVD would have an order book for 300 of a new aircraft.  I did most of my training jumps from the legendary An-2.  My uncle still owns one used for crop dusting  The farms need it for its high capacity and slow speed.  I could see the market go into the thousands.  It is not a competitor of helicopters which comes at a much higher price.  It is not ordered heavily today because it has outdated parts, this will fix that.

Spare parts market and second hand market can work still, and the Russian Armed Forces can take advantage of it, providing spare parts to the civil makets, but those who are purchasing one used An-2, very likely can not afford a new aircraft.

The main problem of these aircrafts in civil makets is the profitability. It is significantly easier to make a profitable service with the purchase of a very low cost used An-2, than with a new aircraft of the same cathegory.

This type of aircrafts are losing even the agricultural market for new units with the apparition of modern UAVs, that can be expensive in a first stage, but will have better price in the long term, because structurally the UAVs allow lower costs of production and operation.

With the time, with the exhaustion of the oldest aircrafts, it is likely that parachute training evolves to situations closer to the reality of the war operations.

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Forgot the Ansat and ka-226. Still mi-17 doesn't have the range of TVS 2DTS. This is the new replacement and my original post did state is their a replacement and this is it. You still fail to see that there's a market for this type of aircraft. But like I said eehnie the Oracle knows best. Better than Rostec.

No, I do not fail. There are not data, real data, from the markets that allow to think in a success of this new variant(?). Neither in Russia, neither outside of Russia. Successful regional aircrafts in the last decades are at least of he size cathegory of the Su-Superjet. This is the reality.

With the time I had here similar discussions about the following aircrafts:

Rysachok
Be-200
SR-10
Il-112 (pending solution)

And I did not fail. It is about to apply correctly the knowledge gained in the Engineering School. Only that.

If the things go by logical terms:

Diamond DA42: Seems likely to fail to be adopted by the Russian Armed Forces.
L-410: Seems likely to have not a successful return to production in Russia.
TVS 2DTS variant of the An-2: Seems likely to repeat not the success of the previous variants neither for military nor civil purposes.

You eehnie the Oracle has failef and FAIL massively.
An-2 is a successful aircraft it's long continued service and number produced is a testament to that

Rostec have seen the need and the gap in the market for such a replacement hence the investment into building a facility.

Vladimir79 also brought up another valid point the cost is much cheaper. As well roles. The su superjet is a completely different aircraft for a different role I can believe your suggesting that it's in the same league.

As for L410 there's new version being planned
L-410NG although not built in Russia but had its russian certificate signed off last year. And with Russia in the process of building the facilities for the TVS 2DTS as well sanctions getting thrown at them constantly these are the reasons there not producing L410

The Chinese Y-12 which is similar and in comparison to L410 is still in production and used by a multitude of countries and organisations

Aircraft Industries, the company that produces the Let L-410 filed for bankruptcy in 2016. Historically it was a Czech company recently controled by new Russian owners that wanted to move the production of this aircraft to Russia. The main reason for this bankruptcy was the lack of orders for new aircrafts and monetary disadvantages caused by the depreciation of the Rouble.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1889713.html

Sued for bankruptcy of Czech company Aircraft Industries

bmpd
May 8th, 2016
As reported on May 3, 2016 on the web resource aviaforum.ru , Czech aircraft company Aero Vodochody Aerospace today [May 3] filed a lawsuit recognizing the insolvent of another Czech aircraft company - Aircraft Industries (formerly Let, fully controlled by JSC "Ural Mining and Metallurgical Company "(UMMC), owned by Iskander Makhmudov) .

According to the public, the total debt of Aircraft Industries exceeds 400 million kroons (14.8 million euros), including 38.3 million kroons (1.42 million euros) to Aero Vodochody. The problems of Aircraft Industries are related to the lack of orders and the sharp rise in price of L-410 aircraft on the Russian market due to the fall in the ruble against the dollar.


l-410_uktus

The last aircraft delivered to Russia by Aircraft Industries L-410UVP-E20 - board with serial number 3012 and temporary Czech registration OK-JPI, received in February 2016 by UMMC charter airline Uktus, based in Koltsovo (Ekaterinburg) (c) Aircraft Industries (via www.ato.ru )



Ilona Plashkova, CEO of Aircraft Industries, said: "I am not authorized to comment on this situation, we will be able to make an official statement tomorrow, when the owners of the company arrive in Kunovitsy." I contacted them, informed them of the situation and expect a response from Russia. "

Teresa Vrublova, representative of Aero Vodochody, said: "The issue of filing a lawsuit was a long time ago, but as a result of negotiations with Aircraft Industries this step was unavoidable.Currently, Aircraft Industries owes us 38.3 million kroner for the supplied L -410. Due to the financial problems of Aircraft Industries in December 2015, we jointly worked out a debt repayment schedule, but Aircraft Industries was unable to fulfill it.Aero executives offered to hold an additional round of negotiations with Aircraft Industries, but the shareholders of the company this proposal was rejected. "


The bmpd comment . As our blog has already reported , Aircraft Industries is experiencing serious difficulties due to a sharp decline in sales of L-410UVP-E20 light passenger aircraft manufactured by the plant, primarily in the Russian market - the main market for these aircraft - and the corresponding termination of orders for these aircraft on the part of Russian small regional air carriers, which themselves in no small part found themselves in a difficult financial situation. Financing of the acquisition of L-410UVP-E20 aircraft by these carriers in recent years was mainly carried out by the authorities of the Russian regions, which actually stopped allocating funds for this because of the economic downturn. The purchase of L-410UVP-E20 aircraft by the Russian Ministry of Defense has also been discontinued .

From 2008 to the present, Aircraft Industries produced 84 L-410UVP-E20 aircraft, of which at least 46 have been delivered to Russian customers. At the same time, comments on the web-site aviaforum.ru indicate the high cost of operating the L-410UVP aircraft -E20 in Russian conditions, caused by the high cost of spare parts delivered from the Czech Republic and Czech service. As a result, it is estimated, in Russia currently no more than a dozen L-410UVP-E20 aircraft are actually operated (without cars of the Ministry of Defense of Russia).

The financial issues likely have been solved with public help, but the lack of orders has not been solved, and a good number of the last units of L-410 produced in the Czech Republic, remain in the hands of the company that produced them, without a delivery to a external client, like you can see here:

https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Let/L-410

Without a sale of these aircrafts previously produced, the launch of the production in Russia is very very difficult.

But of course, no-one of the real data have a meaning for you. You prefer to ignore the real data. Your words and insults are empty of reality.

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:Forgot the Ansat and ka-226. Still mi-17 doesn't have the range of TVS 2DTS. This is the new replacement and my original post did state is their a replacement and this is it. You still fail to see that there's a market for this type of aircraft. But like I said eehnie the Oracle knows best. Better than Rostec.

No, I do not fail. There are not data, real data, from the markets that allow to think in a success of this new variant(?). Neither in Russia, neither outside of Russia. Successful regional aircrafts in the last decades are at least of he size cathegory of the Su-Superjet. This is the reality.

With the time I had here similar discussions about the following aircrafts:

Rysachok
Be-200
SR-10
Il-112 (pending solution)

And I did not fail. It is about to apply correctly the knowledge gained in the Engineering School. Only that.

If the things go by logical terms:

Diamond DA42: Seems likely to fail to be adopted by the Russian Armed Forces.
L-410: Seems likely to have not a successful return to production in Russia.
TVS 2DTS variant of the An-2: Seems likely to repeat not the success of the previous variants neither for military nor civil purposes.

You eehnie the Oracle has failef and FAIL massively.
An-2 is a successful aircraft it's long continued service and number produced is a testament to that

Rostec have seen the need and the gap in the market for such a replacement hence the investment into building a facility.

Vladimir79 also brought up another valid point the cost is much cheaper. As well roles. The su superjet is a completely different aircraft for a different role I can believe your suggesting that it's in the same league.

As for L410 there's new version being planned
L-410NG although not built in Russia but had its russian certificate signed off last year. And with Russia in the process of building the facilities for the TVS 2DTS as well sanctions getting thrown at them constantly these are the reasons there not producing L410

The Chinese Y-12 which is similar and in comparison to L410 is still in production and used by a multitude of countries and organisations

Aircraft Industries, the company that produces the Let L-410 filed for bankruptcy in 2016. Historically it was a Czech company recently controled by new Russian owners that wanted to move the production of this aircraft to Russia. The main reason for this bankruptcy was the lack of orders for new aircrafts and monetary disadvantages caused by the depreciation of the Rouble.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1889713.html

Sued for bankruptcy of Czech company Aircraft Industries

bmpd
May 8th, 2016
As reported on May 3, 2016 on the web resource aviaforum.ru , Czech aircraft company Aero Vodochody Aerospace today [May 3] filed a lawsuit recognizing the insolvent of another Czech aircraft company - Aircraft Industries (formerly Let, fully controlled by JSC "Ural Mining and Metallurgical Company "(UMMC), owned by Iskander Makhmudov) .

According to the public, the total debt of Aircraft Industries exceeds 400 million kroons (14.8 million euros), including 38.3 million kroons (1.42 million euros) to Aero Vodochody. The problems of Aircraft Industries are related to the lack of orders and the sharp rise in price of L-410 aircraft on the Russian market due to the fall in the ruble against the dollar.


l-410_uktus

The last aircraft delivered to Russia by Aircraft Industries L-410UVP-E20 - board with serial number 3012 and temporary Czech registration OK-JPI, received in February 2016 by UMMC charter airline Uktus, based in Koltsovo (Ekaterinburg) (c) Aircraft Industries (via www.ato.ru )



Ilona Plashkova, CEO of Aircraft Industries, said: "I am not authorized to comment on this situation, we will be able to make an official statement tomorrow, when the owners of the company arrive in Kunovitsy." I contacted them, informed them of the situation and expect a response from Russia. "

Teresa Vrublova, representative of Aero Vodochody, said: "The issue of filing a lawsuit was a long time ago, but as a result of negotiations with Aircraft Industries this step was unavoidable.Currently, Aircraft Industries owes us 38.3 million kroner for the supplied L -410. Due to the financial problems of Aircraft Industries in December 2015, we jointly worked out a debt repayment schedule, but Aircraft Industries was unable to fulfill it.Aero executives offered to hold an additional round of negotiations with Aircraft Industries, but the shareholders of the company this proposal was rejected. "


The bmpd comment . As our blog has already reported , Aircraft Industries is experiencing serious difficulties due to a sharp decline in sales of L-410UVP-E20 light passenger aircraft manufactured by the plant, primarily in the Russian market - the main market for these aircraft - and the corresponding termination of orders for these aircraft on the part of Russian small regional air carriers, which themselves in no small part found themselves in a difficult financial situation. Financing of the acquisition of L-410UVP-E20 aircraft by these carriers in recent years was mainly carried out by the authorities of the Russian regions, which actually stopped allocating funds for this because of the economic downturn. The purchase of L-410UVP-E20 aircraft by the Russian Ministry of Defense has also been discontinued .

From 2008 to the present, Aircraft Industries produced 84 L-410UVP-E20 aircraft, of which at least 46 have been delivered to Russian customers. At the same time, comments on the web-site aviaforum.ru indicate the high cost of operating the L-410UVP aircraft -E20 in Russian conditions, caused by the high cost of spare parts delivered from the Czech Republic and Czech service. As a result, it is estimated, in Russia currently no more than a dozen L-410UVP-E20 aircraft are actually operated (without cars of the Ministry of Defense of Russia).

The financial issues likely have been solved with public help, but the lack of orders has not been solved, and a good number of the last units of L-410 produced in the Czech Republic, remain in the hands of the company that produced them, without a delivery to a external client, like you can see here:

https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Let/L-410

Without a sale of these aircrafts previously produced, the launch of the production in Russia is very very difficult.

But of course, no-one of the real data have a meaning for you. You prefer to ignore the real data. Your words and insults are empty of reality.

Your last sentence sums you up perfectly you fail to accept the words of Rostec on the TVS 2DTS. Your quite simply a bigot.

At the end of the day if the TVS 2DTS doesn't get built in the time frame given I will eat my words and if it does you can eat your words this I am happy to agree on.

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:Aircraft Industries, the company that produces the Let L-410 filed for bankruptcy in 2016. Historically it was a Czech company recently controled by new Russian owners that wanted to move the production of this aircraft to Russia. The main reason for this bankruptcy was the lack of orders for new aircrafts and monetary disadvantages caused by the depreciation of the Rouble.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1889713.html

Sued for bankruptcy of Czech company Aircraft Industries

bmpd
May 8th, 2016
As reported on May 3, 2016 on the web resource aviaforum.ru , Czech aircraft company Aero Vodochody Aerospace today [May 3] filed a lawsuit recognizing the insolvent of another Czech aircraft company - Aircraft Industries (formerly Let, fully controlled by JSC "Ural Mining and Metallurgical Company "(UMMC), owned by Iskander Makhmudov) .

According to the public, the total debt of Aircraft Industries exceeds 400 million kroons (14.8 million euros), including 38.3 million kroons (1.42 million euros) to Aero Vodochody. The problems of Aircraft Industries are related to the lack of orders and the sharp rise in price of L-410 aircraft on the Russian market due to the fall in the ruble against the dollar.


l-410_uktus

The last aircraft delivered to Russia by Aircraft Industries L-410UVP-E20 - board with serial number 3012 and temporary Czech registration OK-JPI, received in February 2016 by UMMC charter airline Uktus, based in Koltsovo (Ekaterinburg) (c) Aircraft Industries (via www.ato.ru )



Ilona Plashkova, CEO of Aircraft Industries, said: "I am not authorized to comment on this situation, we will be able to make an official statement tomorrow, when the owners of the company arrive in Kunovitsy." I contacted them, informed them of the situation and expect a response from Russia. "

Teresa Vrublova, representative of Aero Vodochody, said: "The issue of filing a lawsuit was a long time ago, but as a result of negotiations with Aircraft Industries this step was unavoidable.Currently, Aircraft Industries owes us 38.3 million kroner for the supplied L -410. Due to the financial problems of Aircraft Industries in December 2015, we jointly worked out a debt repayment schedule, but Aircraft Industries was unable to fulfill it.Aero executives offered to hold an additional round of negotiations with Aircraft Industries, but the shareholders of the company this proposal was rejected. "


The bmpd comment . As our blog has already reported , Aircraft Industries is experiencing serious difficulties due to a sharp decline in sales of L-410UVP-E20 light passenger aircraft manufactured by the plant, primarily in the Russian market - the main market for these aircraft - and the corresponding termination of orders for these aircraft on the part of Russian small regional air carriers, which themselves in no small part found themselves in a difficult financial situation. Financing of the acquisition of L-410UVP-E20 aircraft by these carriers in recent years was mainly carried out by the authorities of the Russian regions, which actually stopped allocating funds for this because of the economic downturn. The purchase of L-410UVP-E20 aircraft by the Russian Ministry of Defense has also been discontinued .

From 2008 to the present, Aircraft Industries produced 84 L-410UVP-E20 aircraft, of which at least 46 have been delivered to Russian customers. At the same time, comments on the web-site aviaforum.ru indicate the high cost of operating the L-410UVP aircraft -E20 in Russian conditions, caused by the high cost of spare parts delivered from the Czech Republic and Czech service. As a result, it is estimated, in Russia currently no more than a dozen L-410UVP-E20 aircraft are actually operated (without cars of the Ministry of Defense of Russia).

The financial issues likely have been solved with public help, but the lack of orders has not been solved, and a good number of the last units of L-410 produced in the Czech Republic, remain in the hands of the company that produced them, without a delivery to a external client, like you can see here:

https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Let/L-410

Without a sale of these aircrafts previously produced, the launch of the production in Russia is very very difficult.

But of course, no-one of the real data have a meaning for you. You prefer to ignore the real data. Your words and insults are empty of reality.

Your last sentence sums you up perfectly you fail to accept the words of Rostec on the TVS 2DTS. Your quite simply a bigot.

At the end of the day if the TVS 2DTS doesn't get built in the time frame given I will eat my words and if it does you can eat your words this I am happy to agree on.

Many of your sentences prove your lack of technical and of management knowledge.

The moderators should take into account your repeated insults.

Eehnie I keep forgetting your the Oracle of everything including being an engineer, technician, military strategist, economist, political expert, And aviation guru. Way beyond the likes of Rostec, ex servicemen, generals, presidents, those who build and sell military equipment as well as multi millionaire/billionaire salesmen and companies. I salute you sir

You fail to even recognise articles and statements by companies etc. Instead running roughshod over there articles and comments because you believe that your views are correct regardless you do it with everything on this forum. At least others accept when there wrong or accept articles and statements even if it's not what they want to hear. But always feel you are superior that. There's a word for it it's called bigot.

Your last comments were completely ridiculous. You display all of the above fact.

You failed to even see that I ended the argument saying that if they produce TVS 2DTS in the time then that you can eat your words and likewise if they didn't I would eat mine. It's called a settling a disagreement or compromise maybe that's something that you can't comprehend in your superior complex.

eehnie wrote:

Spare parts market and second hand market can work still, and the Russian Armed Forces can take advantage of it, providing spare parts to the civil makets, but those who are purchasing one used An-2, very likely can not afford a new aircraft.

The main problem of these aircrafts in civil makets is the profitability. It is significantly easier to make a profitable service with the purchase of a very low cost used An-2, than with a new aircraft of the same cathegory.

This type of aircrafts are losing even the agricultural market for new units with the apparition of modern UAVs, that can be expensive in a first stage, but will have better price in the long term, because structurally the UAVs allow lower costs of production and operation.

I am having a hard time following your argument.  You think that there is no market for relaunch of An-2 because a) helicopters are better and b) there are enough used An-2 they won't buy it?  The market for used An-2 gets smaller every year and is quickly disappearing.  The utility helicopters you advocate instead of it are several times more expensive and do not fill the same roles it is used for.  Now you are advocating UAVs for crop dusting?  Tell me which one has the capacity to do the job at the price?  The only drones with that kind of payload are about 10X more expensive than the composite An-2 and that doesn't include the control station.

With the time, with the exhaustion of the oldest aircrafts, it is likely that parachute training evolves to situations closer to the reality of the war operations.

So you think the same thing about fighter training too?  Should we get rid of prop trainers and advanced jet trainers and just stick them in the cockpit of Su-35?

PapaDragon wrote:I just love when random online noobs try to teach veteran paratrooper about merits of different aircraft used for parachuting...

Can you explain me how the vehicles of the BMD-4(M) family will be used by the Russian Airborne Troops?

It is obvious that a real combat operation where the Russian Airborne Troops be involved today requires transport aircrafts of at least around 20 tons of payload (= transport aircrafts of the size cathegory of the An-10/12, that are also of the same size cathegory of the Su-Superjet airliner).

If you want you can ask to Vladimir79 which transport aircrafts were used for the training of parachuting with their armoured vehicles.

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Spare parts market and second hand market can work still, and the Russian Armed Forces can take advantage of it, providing spare parts to the civil makets, but those who are purchasing one used An-2, very likely can not afford a new aircraft.

The main problem of these aircrafts in civil makets is the profitability. It is significantly easier to make a profitable service with the purchase of a very low cost used An-2, than with a new aircraft of the same cathegory.

This type of aircrafts are losing even the agricultural market for new units with the apparition of modern UAVs, that can be expensive in a first stage, but will have better price in the long term, because structurally the UAVs allow lower costs of production and operation.

I am having a hard time following your argument.  You think that there is no market for relaunch of An-2 because a) helicopters are better and b) there are enough used An-2 they won't buy it?  The market for used An-2 gets smaller every year and is quickly disappearing.  The utility helicopters you advocate instead of it are several times more expensive and do not fill the same roles it is used for.  Now you are advocating UAVs for crop dusting?  Tell me which one has the capacity to do the job at the price?  The only drones with that kind of payload are about 10X more expensive than the composite An-2 and that doesn't include the control station.

No this is not my point.

The main evidence about a lack of market for auxiliary/civil aircrafts (except trainers) between roughly 2.2 tons and 45.5 tons of Maximum Take-Off Weight is the lack of real orders of the real customers in the last decades. The rest are only comments about different cases with low sales to document the fact and the reasons that lead to it.

Im not advocating for helicopters, Im signaling how the orders for helicopters are bigger and helicopters dominate de market. Neither Im advocating for UAVs, Im signaling that UAVs are entering on the market of agricultural aircrafts.

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:With the time, with the exhaustion of the oldest aircrafts, it is likely that parachute training evolves to situations closer to the reality of the war operations.

So you think the same thing about fighter training too?  Should we get rid of prop trainers and advanced jet trainers and just stick them in the cockpit of Su-35?

The case is different, totally different, because the An-2 was not designed for this purpose. The An-2 is doing this training job as secondary role, like the MiG-15 has been used in North Korea.

If Russia needs some day a trainer aircraft for parachute training or auxiliary aircraft pilot training, Russia will find specific training aircrafts.

In the case of the training for auxiliary aircraft pilots, the specific training aircraft would be very likely under 2.2 tons of MTOW. Like the Diamond DA42 but local, if the Yak-152 is not enough.

In the case of the parachute jump training, I doubt even about the need of this kind of aircrafts, because the operational costs per jump of using bigger aircrafts for training is likely to be smaller. As example, to do 100 training jumps with a bigger aircraft is only necessary one aircraft and one fly. To do 100 training jumps with An-2, around 10 flies of one or several aircrafts are required.

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:...

You proved to have zero brain and to talk happily about what you know not, and you continue in your line. Nothing to save of your comments.

Eehnie on many occasions you show you have no brain and live in a fantasy world of your own. You have no military experience clearly. I remember when you were talking about getting rid of 82mm mortars a useless and than 120mm mortars were perfectly easy to be man portable which many others including me refuted your claims yet you said we were all wrong yet you have never man packed a mortar of any size in your life.

And you contradicted yourself you were advocating the use of helicopters you stated that they could do the job better and quoted a list of states etc you even fail to see when you even contradict yourself. But you won't accept ever when you're wrong you have never done even when proven wrong.

And sales being low is not necessarily and indication of it being useless there's many types of aircraft where only small numbers are built maybe because there a fill a unique role and not everyone needs that role. But you're talking about a successful aircraft being useless and having no future yet your the ONLY one who things it's useless and yet you can't accept your wrong even you believe Rostec are wrong and ex servicemen are wrong. At the end of the day there is a need for this type of aircraft regardless if you think it not. It might not see the same sales as An-2 but it will see sales and come into production. And with ever increasing sanctions it's even more likely Russia will produce such an aircraft.

Also comparing a military transport aircraft to a passenger jet as if the su superjet is going to fulfil the same role when it was never designed for such. Parachuting men and parachuting armoured vehicles is a completely different requirement and obviously an An-2 was not designed for the latter but neither was an Ansat or ka-60.

Parachute training normally gets done in small aircraft to begin with before moving onto larger aircraft with more men in the sky this is how the training is done and it would not be cheaper flying something bigger to drop 10 men. The British army never used big aircraft for jumps at the start of training. And at one point they even considered scrapping jumps in big aircraft for smaller aircraft the reason was if an aircraft was shot down it would be a mass loss of life and having smaller aircraft reduced the number of potential dead if an aircraft was shot down. In the end they didn't go for it due to lack of funds believe it or not and that they saw parachute drops as a declining tactic.

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.

For the utility aircraft role, that combines small transport and small airliner roles, the reality is that helicopters dominate the markets. And the main reason for it is that helicopters are better adapted to what the custormers want offering them advantages over this kind of aircrafts. This is not to advocate for helicopters, it is only to expose the reality.

Helicopters are the main option for the customers of air auxiliary/civil vehicles between roughly 2.2 and 45.5 tons of MTOW. India is interested in the Ka-226, China is interested in the Mi-46/AHL. The Russian civil airlines are interested in the Su-Superjet and in other bigger airliners. The Russian Armed Forces need transport aircrafts of at least the size of the An-10/12 (20 tons of payload). This is the reality. Not other.

In the other side...

All the successors of the An-72/71/74 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Mi-46/AHL size cathegory). The production of the An-148/158/178 is being stopped in Russia by lack of orders:

7th cathegory Airliner aircraft: An-148/158/178 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-148
7th cathegory Transport aircraft: Be-200 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Beriev/Be-200
7th cathegory Transport aircraft: Yak-44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-44
7th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Tu-414 https://web.archive.org/web/20070208060848/http://www.tupolev.ru:80/English/Show.asp?SectionID=124

All the successors of the An-24/26/30/32 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Mi-38 size cathegory):

8th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Tu-324 https://web.archive.org/web/20070208060848/http://www.tupolev.ru:80/English/Show.asp?SectionID=124
8th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Il-114 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-114
8th cathegory Airliner aircraft: An-140 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-140
8th cathegory Transport aircraft: Il-112 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-112
8th cathegory Transport aircraft: Tu-130/136 https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/tu-136.htm
8th cathegory Transport aircraft: MiG-110 http://avia.pro/blog/mig-110

While the Yak-130 trainer surpassed this level of production successfully, the last successful transport/airliner aircraft in the size cathegory of the Mi-8 and Ka-27 families is earlier still. All the recent projects have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed:

9th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Yak-48 http://avia.pro/blog/yak-48
9th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Il-108 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-108
9th cathegory Transport aircraft: Su-80 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Sukhoi/Su-80
9th cathegory Transport aircraft: Be-112 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-112

All the successors of the Che-22 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Ka-60/62 size cathegory), and a good number of units of the L-410 remain in stock without finding a customer that purchase them:

10th cathegory Trainer aircraft: MiG-AT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-AT
10th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-302 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/m302.html
10th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-202 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/m202.html
10th cathegory Transport aircraft: TVS 2DTS https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/sibnia/tvs-2dts/
10th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-208 Eagle http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t208.html

All the successors of the An-2/4/6 have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed (this is also the Mi-Ansat size cathegory):

11th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-101/130/210 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/craft/t101.html http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t130.html http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t210.html
11th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-207 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t207.html
11th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-102 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/m102.html
11th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Rysachok http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Technoavia/Rysachyok
11th cathegory Airliner aircraft: MiG-125 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/aliner/mig125.html
11th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-115 Niva http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t115.html
11th cathegory Airliner aircraft: T-440 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t440.html

The last successful aircraft in the size cathegory of the Ka-226 is also earlier. All the recent projects have been unable to reach 50 units produced completed:

12th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-517 Fermer http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t517.html
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: GM-17 Viper http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/gm17.html
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: M-101 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Myasishchev/M-101
12th cathegory Trainer aircraft: SR-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KB_SAT_SR-10
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: SM92 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technoavia_SM92_Finist
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: M-500 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/m500.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-507 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t507.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: T-511 Aist-M http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/t511.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: LA-8 http://avia.pro/blog/la-8-aerovolga-tehnicheskie-harakteristiki-foto
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: SA-20P http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/sa20p.html
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Be-103 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Beriev/Be-103
12th cathegory Airliner aircraft: Akkord-201 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/akkord201.html

Checking case per case the market reality that these models suffered and are suffering, my words are perfectly understandable.
To note that the far bigger and far more expensive An-124 surpassed 50 units produced completed.

The orders of An-2 after 1970 were minimal.

They were simple to operate and easy to keep running and there was nothing else that could do the job.

Many designs wanted to be the successor of the An-2, but failed both for military and civil purposes. The concept is outdated.

there is nothing wrong with the concept and the fact that this new aircraft has been developed shows it is still a requirement... it is just that nothing has solved all the problems in a simple affordable way... we don't know if this model will succeed either... that US engine might be too expensive or difficult to maintain...

For military purposes the An-2 has too low service ceiling. 4500m means the aircraft can not fly avoiding manpads.

The weak IR signature would make it a very difficult target from that range...

Of course the units in service still are used, but in the refered to the Russian Armed Forces very likely are under exhaustion in the mid-term and will not have replacement with aircrafts of its size cathegory. In this aircraft cathegory helicopters dominate.

The An-2 is vastly superior to helos and is able to operate from austere strips in very primitive conditions with basic maintainence and support.

It is only $1.5m per unit, that is the selling point. There are many countries that cannot afford more but still need this capability.

That is cheap... you wont get a helicopter with this sort of performance for that price.

A lot of previous attempts to replace the An-2 failed because they were too complicated or too expensive, or simply couldn't operate in the conditions the AN-2 can operate in.

The farms need it for its high capacity and slow speed. I could see the market go into the thousands. It is not a competitor of helicopters which comes at a much higher price. It is not ordered heavily today because it has outdated parts, this will fix that.

I remember reading somewhere that it is actually very popular in Canada and the US once it got clearance to fly... the big problem is that it is not allowed to be used commercially... which would normally cripple sales, yet they still seem to have sold some...

Can you explain me how the vehicles of the BMD-4(M) family will be used by the Russian Airborne Troops?

It is obvious that a real combat operation where the Russian Airborne Troops be involved today requires transport aircrafts of at least around 20 tons of payload (= transport aircrafts of the size cathegory of the An-10/12, that are also of the same size cathegory of the Su-Superjet airliner).

If you want you can ask to Vladimir79 which transport aircrafts were used for the training of parachuting with their armoured vehicles.

Not every transport aircraft needs to carry armour... delivering a group of 6-12 paratroopers does not need an Il-476...

The case is different, totally different, because the An-2 was not designed for this purpose. The An-2 is doing this training job as secondary role, like the MiG-15 has been used in North Korea.

The An-2 is used because it is ideal for the training role...

A composite version with better performance would be even better...

In the case of the parachute jump training, I doubt even about the need of this kind of aircrafts, because the operational costs per jump of using bigger aircrafts for training is likely to be smaller. As example, to do 100 training jumps with a bigger aircraft is only necessary one aircraft and one fly. To do 100 training jumps with An-2, around 10 flies of one or several aircrafts are required.

For a major exercise you might want hundreds or even thousands of jumpers, but during training you might only want a dozen to jump... there would be an enormous cost difference between an An-2 or variant and an An-12 or Il-476.

For the things the An-2 does no helicopter can do... they are much harder to fly, much much more expensive, and simply not an option...

An An-2 upgrade as described is 1.5 million... you would not get an Mi-17 for less than 20 million and its operating costs would be much much higher...

The requirement for a small light aircraft to operate on rough air strips and be easy to operate and cheap to operate and maintain... there is really nothing that comes close to the An-2 and if this new version is all it is cracked up to be it will continue operation for another 70 odd years...

GarryB wrote:

Many designs wanted to be the successor of the An-2, but failed both for military and civil purposes. The concept is outdated.

there is nothing wrong with the concept and the fact that this new aircraft has been developed shows it is still a requirement... it is just that nothing has solved all the problems in a simple affordable way... we don't know if this model will succeed either... that US engine might be too expensive or difficult to maintain...

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

GarryB wrote:

For military purposes the An-2 has too low service ceiling. 4500m means the aircraft can not fly avoiding manpads.

The weak IR signature would make it a very difficult target from that range...

Say it to Ukraine.

GarryB wrote:

Of course the units in service still are used, but in the refered to the Russian Armed Forces very likely are under exhaustion in the mid-term and will not have replacement with aircrafts of its size cathegory. In this aircraft cathegory helicopters dominate.

The An-2 is vastly superior to helos and is able to operate from austere strips in very primitive conditions with basic maintainence and support.

Your words against public specifications.

GarryB wrote:A lot of previous attempts to replace the An-2 failed because they were too complicated or too expensive, or simply couldn't operate in the conditions the AN-2 can operate in.

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.

GarryB wrote:

The case is different, totally different, because the An-2 was not designed for this purpose. The An-2 is doing this training job as secondary role, like the MiG-15 has been used in North Korea.

The An-2 is used because it is ideal for the training role...

A composite version with better performance would be even better...

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.

GarryB wrote:

In the case of the parachute jump training, I doubt even about the need of this kind of aircrafts, because the operational costs per jump of using bigger aircrafts for training is likely to be smaller. As example, to do 100 training jumps with a bigger aircraft is only necessary one aircraft and one fly. To do 100 training jumps with An-2, around 10 flies of one or several aircrafts are required.

For a major exercise you might want hundreds or even thousands of jumpers, but during training you might only want a dozen to jump... there would be an enormous cost difference between an An-2 or variant and an An-12 or Il-476.

Under which conditions training jumps can not be grouped? This is not a realistic situation of management. Real exceptions would be minimal if existing.