Utility/Auxilliary aircrafts in RuAF

I insulted not GarryB. I received insults.

My first call to the moderators to stop the insults was missed

If you are not insulting anyone then you have nothing to worry about.

The basic problem other members have with you I believe is that some of your assumptions are unfounded.

You claim a lack of orders between 1991 and 2001 suggest the An-2 design is obsolete and without purpose, yet Wiki suggests 1,700 were operationally used in Russia in 2015.

Could it not be possible that the lack of orders are actually because they are fairly rugged but also simple machines that really don't require replacement every 5-10 years like a modern motorcar?

The fact that it has not been in production for some time also makes new production unlikely of the old aircraft unless there was a real sudden demand to replace the older aircraft... which their isn't.

Now a new Russian model might appeal to existing customers, though the US engine might be a stumbling block I am sure they can rectify that over time... US sanctions will likely make that necessary rather than desirable.

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

Yet, you are not suggesting UAVs and helicopters are obsolete?

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

The An-2 hasn't been in production for some time, so there was really no alternative if you already own one... you just spend more money keeping it running... even though it is likely a bit tired.

Now they have a real replacement that actually has even better performance and the potential to do an even better job, so why would they not take the opportunity to replace the aircraft they currently have with a brand new aircraft.

And the strong competence of the helicopters is only increasing:

Helicopters are a different aircraft type... through the operational life of the An-2 the helicopter has appeared and gotten better, yet it has never really replaced the An-2 in a large variety of roles... an An-2 is simply cheaper to operate and safer too.

PAK TA means : "Perspective of Airborne Complex of Transport Aviation"
Is not an specicif airplane is only a generic name for a future undefined program

I know... that is why I hoped they would expand it out into an engine related family of three types to cover the payload ranges of the An-22, An-124, and An-225... using two, four and six new engines...

Also the replacement is underway , An-26 by Il-112V , An-20 for Il-276 , Il-76 for Il-476 and also modernizated to Il-76 and An-124 is being modernized
for opérate at least 40 or perhaps 50 years of life , so Russian Air Force is not in hurry for develop more airplanes rigth now.

They talk about the Il-112 as the replacement for the An-26 and the An-72, but they also refer to the Il-114 as the replacement as well... which is a little confusing. The An-12 will be replaced by the Il-276, and the Il-76 will be replaced by the modernised Il-476.

I agree that modernisation of some aircraft will keep them operational for some time, but the requirements of mobility for the Army suggests lots of transports will be needed, including heavy transports and the current situation with the An-124 using a Ukrainian engine is not acceptable... a brand new engine in that power range could be used in a lighter aircraft to fill the space the An-22 left when it was withdrawn from service... and if you are going to design such an aircraft it would make sense to develop a family of aircraft sharing the same basic design and engines for the three weight classes I discussed above.

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

One of the articles about this new aircraft suggest it has no stall speed... if the engine fails then the pilot just pulls back hard on the stick and the aircraft slows and descends at a rate comparable to landing with a parachute till you hit the ground... in a high speed head wind the aircraft can actually fly backwards under full control.

Garry B, there is nothing unfounded in my words. My words are just based in the reality, a reality that Im exposing with real data.

The demand of this kind of aircrafts declined in the 1990s, but has been lower still in the 2000s and the 2010s. You can analize the sales of every case of aircraft that in Included, and you can see how all them failed commercially, not only in the size cathegory of the An-2/4/6, but in all the size cathegories between roughly 2.2 and 45,6 tons of Maximum Take-Off Weight. Not only that, we can see how the sales of some of the previously successful aricrafts, like the An-72/71/74 and the An-24/26/30/32, neither reached 50 aircrafts in the last 25 years.

https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-72/74 (47 units since 1994)
https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-24 (0 units since 1994, uncomplete but production of this variant was stopped before this year)
https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-26 (0 units since 1994)
https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-30 (0 units since 1994)
https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-32 (34 units since 1994)
https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Antonov/An-2 (0 units since 1994, uncomplete, included 15542 of the 15760 of European production and 0 of the 1027+ of Chinese production)
Without concrete data for the Che-22.

All it means not only a rejection of some concrete models based on their features, it means a rejection of the whole concept. And this is not only a trend of the Russian market, is also a worldwide trend.

You talk about the remaining units of the An-2 in service. The source gives reference of 1526+17 still fliying active, but also gives reference of other 13999 that are not flying active. What happened with them? Obviously a big majority of them have not been purchasing neither new units of the supposed successors, neither of the An-2/4/6 (new or used), neither of other aircrafts in the size cathegories around. The whole concept is declining strongly in these size cathegories.

You continue saying it has not been other alternative than to keep the old units running. This is not right. Here again, you have the list of local alternatives, but no-one succeeded. Also foreign options can be included:

eehnie wrote: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://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1170
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://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1990/1990%20-%201314.html
9th cathegory Transport aircraft: Su-80 http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Sukhoi/Su-80
9th cathegory Transport aircraft: Be-112 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/be112.html

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 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/migat.html
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 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/other/sr10.html
12th cathegory Transport aircraft: SM92 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/craft/sm92.html
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.

Some people here still ignores the real data despite to have them in front of their face. They have their own narrative and nothing else matters.

A new model is emerging in a rough environment of failed bids in at least the last 25 years. The US engine is not the main problem of this model in order to succeed. The whole situation of the market is instead. Its main problem is the lack of real demand today. Like the existence of units of L-410 in stock proves, the demand of this type of aircrafts is very very weak today, unlike in other cases like helicopters or aircrafts over 45.5 tons MTOW.

GarryB wrote:

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

Yet, you are not suggesting UAVs and helicopters are obsolete?

I said clearly before that both auxiliary aircrafts and helicopters must avoid contested areas. Not totally possible still, but achievable in the following 2 or 3 decades.

I said also clearly that I consider the concept of combat helicopter between the less modern modern armament of the Russian Armed Forces. I explained many times how I consider the concept of combat helicopter very likely will evolve toward unmanned technologies in order to avoid the high risks of the current use of manned combat helicopters.

UAVs otherwise can be many times expendable material. It makes not them obsolete.

GarryB wrote:

eehnie wrote:And the strong competence of the helicopters is only increasing:

Helicopters are a different aircraft type... through the operational life of the An-2 the helicopter has appeared and gotten better, yet it has never really replaced the An-2 in a large variety of roles... an An-2 is simply cheaper to operate and safer too.

The competence between aircrafts and helicopters (also aircrafts) is something like the competence between a PC and a MAC. Different systems to solve basically the same roles. In some cases aircrafts prove to be more effective, in other cases helicopters prove to be more effective. And this is the area where helicopters become dominators of the market.

Cheaper... maybe by age in used aircraft markets.
Safer... in doubt.

The introduction of the Ka-60/62 in the same size cathegory of the L-410 and the new project can affect to both strongly. But still reverse engineering of the US engine can be interesting.

GarryB wrote:

AMCXXL wrote:PAK TA means : "Perspective of Airborne Complex of Transport Aviation"
Is not an specicif airplane is only a generic name for a future undefined program

I know... that is why I hoped they would expand it out into an engine related family of three types to cover the payload ranges of the An-22, An-124, and An-225... using two, four and six new engines...

I think you are confusing different projects.

The characteristics on the An-2 make it safer than a helicopter and much much easier to fly than a helicopter. One of the article's states that the TVS 2DTS will be even easier to fly than An-2. So by making something easier to fly gives less pilot error and the fact that in the event of engine problems Inc engine failure an An-2 can effectively slow down and land relatively safely were and helicopter well just hurls towards the earth againing speed and crashes with catastrophic consequences. I mentioned this before. I know which one I would rather be in lol.

The fact remains that Rostec along with various ministries and regional airlines have seen the need for such aircraft and Russian Helicopters holding company are building it. And orders and interest has given. Do I think it will see the same numbers as
An-2? no I don't but I do think it will exceed 50 (@eehnie). And time will tell. But my concerns on the engine and sanctions I hope that Rostec eventually fix this issue.

And also not everything is based on numbers when it comes to success. They only only need to build enough to satisfy their investment and profit on the business side of things and it's customers only need enough to fulfil their needs. If Rostec come out of this in the profit and their customers are happy with the product it's a win win situation for all. And it's also likely the customer will return in the future and maybe be interested in other products. The su-33 for example was never produced in large numbers but fulfilled a niche role that was needed. Ukraines an-225 mriya one being built fulfils a niche role and gets used quite a bit around the world. Helicopters won't dominate this market because it's serves different role helicopters will continue to get better but so will aircraft and both will still serve their roles well the only thing really these two aircrafts are facing is if they will be manned or not.

Pages after pages talking about nothing. I don't even know what you people are even arguing about anyway? Il-112? Plane isn't even flown yet. Il-114 is supposed to fly soon ish anyway. And there is no real detail other than "at least 100 of these cars are needed".

Am I correct or we talking of something else?

Isos wrote:

I think it's eehnie talking about An-2 being a shity plane so all russian plane are shit. And then someone made the mistake to answer him. So now he use red and blue colors to quote wiki pages and who knows what other fantastic (I mean literaly fantastic   ) sources and no one reads it but the orange notification appears on the main page so most people click on it just to remove the orange notification rather than read what he says.

You must admit his market analysis requires a PhD in bullshit to understand. The failure of Russian civil aviation products is a direct result of the collapse of the CCCP supply chain and the further weakening of it with the split with Ukraine. The lack of development of civil aviation engines and avionics placed our products at a severe disadvantage to their Western counterparts and when we did seek the same source we were slapped with sanctions. Over the last 10 years we have been rebuilding that supply chain and are ready for a breakout. The market for these products has been and will always be there.

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Pages after pages talking about nothing. I don't even know what you people are even arguing about anyway? Il-112? Plane isn't even flown yet. Il-114 is supposed to fly soon ish anyway. And there is no real detail other than "at least 100 of these cars are needed".

Am I correct or we talking of something else?

I think it's eehnie talking about An-2 being a shity plane so all russian plane are shit. And then someone made the mistake to answer him. So now he use red and blue colors to quote wiki pages and who knows what other fantastic (I mean literaly fantastic   ) sources and no one reads it but the orange notification appears on the main page so most people click on it just to remove the orange notification rather than read what he says.

Lies like these do not change the reality.

Russia many successful project if which I have been talking in many messages like this:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p250-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#212784

eehnie wrote:Data by weight class, updated at the begin of 2018 from Russianplanes.net and other complementary sources:

1st Size Cathegory:

-

2nd Size Cathegory:

Active 011 Reserve 015 Production 1984-Today An-124

3rd Size Cathegory:

Active 003 Reserve 002 Production 1979-Today Il-86/80/96
Active 004 Reserve 005 Production 1966-1975 An-22

4th Size Cathegory:

Active 152 Reserve 065 Production 1973-Today Il-76/78/A-50
Active 006 Reserve 003 Production 1966-Today Il-62

5th Size Cathegory:

Active 006 Reserve 000 Production 1990-Today Tu-204/214
Active 018 Reserve 003 Production 1969-Today Tu-154

6th Size Cathegory:

Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 2010-Today Su-Superjet100
Active 035 Reserve 052 Production 1980-Today Mi-26/27
Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1976-2003 Yak-42/142: http://russianplanes.net/planelist/Yakovlev/Yak-42
Active 065 Reserve 098 Production 1964-1989 Tu-134
Active 044 Reserve 009 Production 1959-1985 Il-18/20/22/24
Active 064 Reserve 048 Production 1957-1972 An-10/12

7th Size Cathegory:

Active 028 Reserve 019 Production 1985-Today An-72/71/74
Active 000 Reserve 010 Production 1960-1980 Mi-6/10/22

8th Size Cathegory:

Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 2018-Today Mi-38 (would need to reach around 16500 Kg of Maximum Take-Off Weight)
Active 161 Reserve 260 Production 1962-Today An-24/26/30/32

9th Size Cathegory:

Active 099 Reserve 000 Production 2009-Today Yak-130
Active 138 Reserve 068 Production 1979-Today Ka-27/28/29/31/32

10th Size Cathegory:

Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1993-Today Che-22: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/che22.html

11th Size Cathegory:

Active 036 Reserve 000 Production 2013-Today Mi-Ansat
Active 028 Reserve 029 Production 1966-1993 Mi-2
Active 036 Reserve 038 Production 1950-1991 An-2

12th Size Cathegory:

Active 041 Reserve 000 Production 2004-Today Ka-226

13th Size Cathegory:

Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 2018-Today Yak-152
Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1996-2008 Il-103: https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Ilushin/Il-103
Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1989-Today MAI-890: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/la/mai890.html
Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1985-Today Yak-55/54/56: https://www.aviaport.ru/directory/aviation/jak54/
Active 000 Reserve 000 Production 1984-Today Su-26/29/31: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-29
Active 099 Reserve 240 Production 1977-1998 Yak-52

Including all the most modern Russian and Sovietic successful aircrafts and helicopters with production over 50 units, plus the Mi-38 and the Yak-152, which mass production begins now, are expected to be a success, and have been ordered by the Russian Armed Forces. Included not foreign aircrafts that are likely to disappear soon from the Russian Armed forces (by sale, transfer to other governmental ministries or other way):

Active 012 Reserve 000 Production 2009-Today An-148/158/178 in the weignt clas of the An-72/74
Active 009 Reserve 000 Production 1997-Today An-140 in the weight class of the An-24/26/30/32
Active 029 Reserve 070 Production 1970-2015 L-410 in the weight class of the Che-22
Active 200 Reserve 000 Production 1977-1998 L-39 in the weight class of the An-2

Green means production available for Russia. Blue means unlikely to reach the Russian Armed Forces. Purple is related with foreign and local aircrafts likely to disappear soon.

Between the 6 biggest cathegories aircrafts are dominant. Between the following 6 cathegories the helicopters would be dominant despite to be not present in all the cathegories, taking into account the success of the Mi-26/27 and the Mi-6/10 (bigger than the success of the An-72/71/74, with higher number of units produced). And in the smallest cathegory trainer aircrafts would be dominant. In the future I would expect:

- Transport aircrafts to be successful in the 2nd to 6th cathegories (since 20 tons payload).
- Airliner aircrafts to be successful in the 3rd to 6th cathegories (since 95-100 passengers + mid range >5000Km).
- Helicopters to be successful in the 6th to 12th cathegories (until 20 tons payload).
- Trainer aircrafts to be successful in the 9th and 13th cathegories.

The success is uncertain, even unlikely, for the rest of the options. As overall rule, I would avoid to invest on them.

More explanation about, in the following link:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p75-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#189143

According to it, this would be the order of priority for auxiliary aircrafts and helicopters:

0.- Su-SJ100 (I expect some order from the Russian Armed Forces in the short term).

1.- Ka-60/62 (in the Che-22 10th size class with around 2.5 tons payload)
2.- Tu-330 (in the Tu-204/214 5th size class with around 40 tons payload).
3.- Mi-46/AHL (in the An-72/71/74 7th size class with around 15 tons payload).
4.- Il-106/PTS Ermak 80 (in the An-22 3rd size class with around 80 tons payload).
5.- Il-276 (in the An-10/12 6th size class with around 20 tons payload).
6.- PTS Ermak 160 (in the An-124 2nd size class with around 160 tons payload).
7.- Tu-304/Frigate Freejet (in the Il-62 4th size class for double configuration: 1 mid passenger capacity + long range, 2 high passenger capacity + mid range).
8.- New Aircraft (in the Il-76/78 Be-A50 4th size class with around 60 tons payload).
9.- CRAIC CR929 (in the Il-86/80/96 3rd size class for high passenger capacity + long range).
10.- Ka-40 Minoga (in the Ka/27/28/29/31/32/35 9th size class with around 5 tons payload).
11.- New Helicopter (in the Mi-26/27 6th size class with around 20 tons payload.
12.- MS-21/Yak-242 (in the Tu-204/214 5th size class for mid passenger capacity + mid range).

Note that the PTS Ermak 240 would come as consecuence of the three sizes philosophy of the PAK-VTA project, but would not be prioritary in my view. The Il-PAK-TA is not in the list because would be for air transport in contested areas.

The Mi-6/10/22 seems exhausted, pending total decommission.
I would expect the An-22 to be used until to be totally exhausted in the short-term.
The An-2 need also a plan for total exhaustion.

As you can see in the first list, with the boxes, a good number of Russian/Sovietic aricrafts fairly successful continue being used, and as you can see in the second list of 12+ projects, there is a good number of current Russian projects that can become successful, and deserve to continue/begin its development.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Isos wrote:

I think it's eehnie talking about An-2 being a shity plane so all russian plane are shit. And then someone made the mistake to answer him. So now he use red and blue colors to quote wiki pages and who knows what other fantastic (I mean literaly fantastic   ) sources and no one reads it but the orange notification appears on the main page so most people click on it just to remove the orange notification rather than read what he says.

You must admit his market analysis requires a PhD in bullshit to understand.  The failure of Russian civil aviation products is a direct result of the collapse of the CCCP supply chain and the further weakening of it with the split with Ukraine.  The lack of development of civil aviation engines and avionics placed our products at a severe disadvantage to their Western counterparts and when we did seek the same source we were slapped with sanctions.  Over the last 10 years we have been rebuilding that supply chain and are ready for a breakout.  The market for these products has been and will always be there.  

You can do better than this Vladimir79.

To see what Im saying you only need to analize the range of products of Airbus. A modern and recent aircraft constructor, which range of products is free of the old successful trends from a period in which the company was not active, and shows isolated which are the modern successful trends on auxiliary/civil aircrafts construction.

Airbus is a direct and advanced competitor of the Russian Aircraft Corporation.

The entire range of products of Airbus is and has been adapted to the size cathegories that allow a profit for the customer airlines, avoiding the size acthegories that allow not it. Just in line with what I commented.

eehnie wrote:

You can do better than this Vladimir79.

Really? You are the one using wiki which has long been banned on this forum as a worthless source. The worst part is you use it to highlight products that have nothing to do with the markets of An-2 which are sky diving, crop dusting and bush planes.

To see what Im saying you only need to analize the range of products of Airbus. A modern and recent aircraft constructor, which range of products is free of the old successful trends from a period in which the company was not active, and shows isolated which are the modern successful trends on auxiliary/civil aircrafts construction.

You have certainly analized something but you haven't analysed any products outside of Russia. Why don't you list the foreign products that actually compete with the markets of the An-2 that are sky diving, crop dusting and bush planes.

Airbus is a direct and advanced competitor of the Russian Aircraft Corporation.

The entire range of products of Airbus is and has been adapted to the size cathegories that allow a profit for the customer airlines, avoiding the size acthegories that allow not it. Just in line with what I commented.

It isn't a direct competitor of the An-2. They don't make any planes for that purpose.

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

You can do better than this Vladimir79.

Really?  You are the one using wiki which has long been banned on this forum as a worthless source.  The worst part is you use it to highlight products that have nothing to do with the markets of An-2 which are sky diving, crop dusting and bush planes.

You maybe confused with the comment of GarryB. The quotes of Wikipedia were of him.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p325-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#234168  

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:To see what Im saying you only need to analize the range of products of Airbus. A modern and recent aircraft constructor, which range of products is free of the old successful trends from a period in which the company was not active, and shows isolated which are the modern successful trends on auxiliary/civil aircrafts construction.

You have certainly analized something but you haven't analysed any products outside of Russia.  Why don't you list the foreign products that actually compete with the markets of the An-2 that are sky diving, crop dusting and bush planes.

Airbus is European. To know about the range of Airbus, I obviously analyzed als9 products of outside of Russia.   

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:Airbus is a direct and advanced competitor of the Russian Aircraft Corporation.

The entire range of products of Airbus is and has been adapted to the size cathegories that allow a profit for the customer airlines, avoiding the size acthegories that allow not it. Just in line with what I commented.

It isn't a direct competitor of the An-2.  They don't make any planes for that purpose.

The key of all this is why they entered not in this segment.

eehnie wrote:

You maybe confused with the comment of GarryB. The quotes of Wikipedia were of him.

I see you listing aircraft with links to wiki, it has nothing to do with Garry.  

Airbus is European. To know about the range of Airbus, I obviously analyzed als9 products of outside of Russia. 
 
The entire range of products of Airbus is and has been adapted to the size cathegories that allow a profit for the customer airlines, avoiding the size acthegories that allow not it. Just in line with what I commented.

The key of all this is why they entered not in this segment.

According to your logic Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft have no market, yet they dominate the markets the An-2 would be competing against.  

The fact that you mention Airbus as a competitor and none of the actual competitors only shows your ignorance of the industry.

Vladimir79 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

You maybe confused with the comment of GarryB. The quotes of Wikipedia were of him.

I see you listing aircraft with links to wiki, it has nothing to do with Garry.  

Airbus is European. To know about the range of Airbus, I obviously analyzed als9 products of outside of Russia. 
 
The entire range of products of Airbus is and has been adapted to the size cathegories that allow a profit for the customer airlines, avoiding the size acthegories that allow not it. Just in line with what I commented.

The key of all this is why they entered not in this segment.

According to your logic Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft have no market, yet they dominate the markets the An-2 would be competing against.  

The fact that you mention Airbus as a competitor and none of the actual competitors only shows your ignorance of the industry.

It would be possible to say just the opposite.

Taking inot account the overall market Aeroflot is still today the main Russian civil customer for the aircraft producing companies.

The current fleet of Aeroflot includes Airbus (as its main supplier) but includes not Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft.

http://web.archive.org/web/20180830140019/https://www.aeroflot.ru/ru-en/flight/plane_park

And how to avoid the analysis of the range of products branded as Airbus when the company is the second aircraft manufacturer worldwide by revenue.

I really think that for United Aircraft Corporation and the entire Russian aircraft manufacturer machine, to take example of what Airbus does is more important than to look at what Cessna, Piper or Beechcraft do.

You can think about why the main civil Russian customer has only aircrafts over roughly 45.5 tons of Maximum Take-Off Weight. If you think about it, you will realize where the airlines find profit. We see how Aeroflot in adition to the continued purchasing of Su-SuperJet100 still demands new aircrafts of bigger size. My list of 12 priorities from a military point answers in part to this type of demand valid also for the Russian Armed Forces (in the refered to the costs), and followed also by other Russian and foreign airlines.

At same time you can think about why the second aircraft manufacturer worldwide by revenue, a fairly young company that allows to see clearly in its Airbus range of products the most important recent trends of the aircraft manufacturing industry, and where aircraft manufacturers find really revenue and profit in the last decades..

They are fairly solid points that are easy and comfortable to defend for me.

If I explained not the situation in the Russian market of new (not used) aircrafts of Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft, is also in your hand to do it. In the size cathegory of the An-2 and in other cathegories around.

PS: I have not problem replacing links (very few) to english wikipedia. It was some case where it was not easy to find alternative, but not problem.

Isos wrote:Just some years to wait and you will have russian made engines for planes and ships.

The current range of Russian aircraft engines is fairly good and complete.    

The replacement is fairly comfortable in this case.

I think An-2 is supposed to get an all composite variant being made in Russia as is. This will be good!

And Yak-40 as well!

But I think some of these projects will be put on hold till they come up with alternative engines to use cause many of them want to use western engines (For what ever god forsaken reason other than corruption) and now they wont be able to obtain them.

George1 wrote:i cant believe there is so much conflict in this topic for a tiny airplane like An-2 and its replacement..

Airplane isn't the cause of conflict, it's individual

PapaDragon wrote:

George1 wrote:i cant believe there is so much conflict in this topic for a tiny airplane like An-2 and its replacement..

Airplane isn't the cause of conflict, it's individual

True that

There are some that would argue that black is white, there are those who will argue the different shades of purple and even some that will debate shades of black

The demand of this kind of aircrafts declined in the 1990s, but has been lower still in the 2000s and the 2010s. You can analize the sales of every case of aircraft that in Included, and you can see how all them failed commercially, not only in the size cathegory of the An-2/4/6, but in all the size cathegories between roughly 2.2 and 45,6 tons of Maximum Take-Off Weight. Not only that, we can see how the sales of some of the previously successful aricrafts, like the An-72/71/74 and the An-24/26/30/32, neither reached 50 aircrafts in the last 25 years.

Don't you think there could be other factors coming into play here... like the fact that since 1994 there was very little money to buy new aircraft, and in fact they probably only kept producing until 1994 is because they didn't have anything else to sell?

The workers in those factories probably didn't get their last 3 years worth of pay because they were making old designs with no updates and they were likely trying to sell them for as much as they could get for them... in a market with no money.

All the planes you are listing are Ukrainian... the Ukrainian market is tiny for such aircraft and they had even less money to buy planes with... why would an existing Russian customer buy a foreign plane (Ukrainian) when its technology was no better than the same model they bought ten or 30 years before?

All it means not only a rejection of some concrete models based on their features, it means a rejection of the whole concept. And this is not only a trend of the Russian market, is also a worldwide trend.

Poor analysis. Remote communities in Siberia aren't suddenly going to get helicopters to fly stuff in, and they wont suddenly need five times the load capacity they needed before...

If they have been using an AN-2 for the past 50 years they obviously don't have the money for a modern fully fitted airfield to support a western aircraft or a heavy aircraft...

You talk about the remaining units of the An-2 in service. The source gives reference of 1526+17 still fliying active, but also gives reference of other 13999 that are not flying active. What happened with them? Obviously a big majority of them have not been purchasing neither new units of the supposed successors, neither of the An-2/4/6 (new or used), neither of other aircrafts in the size cathegories around. The whole concept is declining strongly in these size cathegories.

You ask a question and then give an answer to suit your view.

Show us satellite imagery of tiny airstrips in backwater places being replaced by modern fully equipped airfields with paved runways and you might have a point...

You continue saying it has not been other alternative than to keep the old units running. This is not right. Here again, you have the list of local alternatives, but no-one succeeded

OK... if these planes are of no use and obsolete why are they still being used?

Why would so many companies try to make replacement aircraft if there was no future for the type?

Previous attempts to replace the An-2 have failed because there was a serious problem with them... the AN-3 failed because the turboprop engine was too expensive and complex and difficult to maintain in the field... lots of other types failed because they didn't match the performance, or were otherwise not suitable...

The fact that companies continue to try and that ancient An-2 aircraft continue to be used proves there is a role for such aircraft and every reason to make a replacement.

Also foreign options can be included:

Foreign options can certainly be included but all come up short too... as well as being prone to sanctions.

The production of the An-148/158/178 is being stopped in Russia by lack of orders:

No, production is being stopped because the Ukraine refuses to continue cooperation on production... why support the Ukraine?

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):

The Il-114 and Il-112 are both going into full production to replace the An-24 family in current operation in Russian military service and likely also Russian commercial service too.

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 http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/migat.html
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

The TVS-2DTS is going into production with 200 ordered aircraft to start with.... as mentioned in this thread.

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):

All for very good reasons... but the TVS-2DTS will be put into production and service...

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.

50 years ago with Soviet aircraft all you saw were the aircraft that got into service and you never saw all the other prototypes that didn't make it... now you are seeing all the prototypes that don't make it.

Of course sometimes things make it because of political reasons instead of performance reasons... a non soviet producer of jet trainers was a purely political decision... just the same as the Mi-2 is a Russian design but was not made in the Soviet Union...

Any Ukrainian design will have no chance in the Russian military or civilian market... they simply can't be trusted for support and spares, so not only will new Ukrainian designs be eliminated from consideration, but existing Ukrainian designs will be a focus to get them out of service... or at least get them to use Russian components and engines etc.

Some people here still ignores the real data despite to have them in front of their face. They have their own narrative and nothing else matters.

The problem is that you are very selective in your data presentation, and sometimes you clearly misinterpret the data to suit your view.

A new model is emerging in a rough environment of failed bids in at least the last 25 years. The US engine is not the main problem of this model in order to succeed.

Previous failed bids are not relevant, but an American engine that could become sanctioned and unavailable really is the only actual problem for this new aircraft.

I said clearly before that both auxiliary aircrafts and helicopters must avoid contested areas. Not totally possible still, but achievable in the following 2 or 3 decades.

There is no reason why the Baikal cannot be fitted with a DIRCMS pod... in fact that could be its role flying around jamming IR guided anti aircraft missiles for UAVs to operate more safely...

I explained many times how I consider the concept of combat helicopter very likely will evolve toward unmanned technologies in order to avoid the high risks of the current use of manned combat helicopters.

Manned or unmanned wont change the risks... it just effects the potential outcomes... if you need to send a recon platform in to look at enemy forces... a manned aircraft with full self defence suite and flown with skill by a pilot protecting his own ass is more value than a straight and level flying UAV that gets shot down all the time because it is such a sitting target.

UAVs otherwise can be many times expendable material. It makes not them obsolete.

But there is the rub... to make them expendable they must be really cheap... so no DIRCMS... and no expensive equipment... which makes them less effective and less survivable.

I would expect in the future what they will actually do is use manned platforms sitting further back with long range sensors while UAVs go in... the manned platform can monitor the enemy fire and determine what system is where, while the UAVs get blown out of the sky... the data collected by the manned platform together with the close up visuals and data from the UAVs before they are destroyed can be used to launch standoff attacks and artillery attacks against positions that have revealed themselves...

The competence between aircrafts and helicopters (also aircrafts) is something like the competence between a PC and a MAC. Different systems to solve basically the same roles. In some cases aircrafts prove to be more effective, in other cases helicopters prove to be more effective. And this is the area where helicopters become dominators of the market.

No. That is totally wrong.

A better analogy would be a palm top computer and a desktop computer... a palm top computer can pretty much go anywhere you can (some models even for a swim), while desktop computers require more infrastructure... like a wall plug and a desk and chair to operate.

If you have to do hours of office work you don't use the palm top, but if you have to leave your office and go out to a client a palm top can often take the software you need without having to lug everything, or get your client to have to go to the office to see your pitch.

But my concerns on the engine and sanctions I hope that Rostec eventually fix this issue.

Perhaps the problem will fix itself... set up local production for the engine and then when the US slaps on the super heavy sanction package it keeps on harping on about you can nationalise the design and refuse to recognise US patents and copyright...

The market for these products has been and will always be there.

Which suggests production of these aircraft is long over due and will be very well received by the market... boosting transport link performance almost always boosts an economy... the Chinese had a period where they installed high speed trains in China for their internal transport needs and they found it greatly improved their internal economy...

But I think some of these projects will be put on hold till they come up with alternative engines to use cause many of them want to use western engines (For what ever god forsaken reason other than corruption) and now they wont be able to obtain them.

Licence production or steal the design... in the short term and Russian engine in 5 years time when the current engine design has been fully studied.

Super high fuel economy is not the biggest issue... even with a less efficient engine it still is better than the original...

On the point of airbus and cessna etc etc some manufacturers stick to what they know and don't enter markets where the current manufacturers are strong and have years and years of expertise just like cessna doesn't try to build large passenger jets. Small aircraft regardless of manufacturer is still in high demand around the world especially where it's either too dangerous or climate or simply there isn't a need for larger aircraft in that situation. I believe Rostec are not stupid and have done there own expert analysis for the market and have decided that there is a need for for such aircraft.


I agree with GarryB on the engine copy it then build your own copy not recognising usa patent etc. Although the Honeywell engine does have its faults. Rostec have done an agreement as stated to buy X amount of engine then production will take place in Russia perfect time to copy it. Lol in til russian engine is ready

GarryB, you try to argue against every real evidence. Nothing that agrees with the reality of market.


The argument of the crisis of the 1990s is not valid at this point, when we see some modern aircrafts also succeeding and surpassing clearly the 50 units produced completed even in early stages of its cycle of life. The Su-Superjet100, Yak-130, Mi-Ansat, Ka-226 and Il-103 surpassed this level of sales in this time of crisis. Other previous models like the Mi-8 family, Ka-27 family, Mi-26/27, Il-76, Tu-204/214 reached it, and even the Tu-154 (predecessor of the Tu-204/214) almost reached this level of 50 units produced completed since 1994, despite the competence of the Tu-204/214.

All them are included in this scheme, previously commented, and fit almost all the cathegories:

eehnie wrote:https://www.russiadefence.net/t4312p250-russian-transport-aircraft-fleet-vta#212784

Between the 6 biggest cathegories aircrafts are dominant. Between the following 6 cathegories the helicopters would be dominant despite to be not present in all the cathegories, taking into account the success of the Mi-26/27 and the Mi-6/10 (bigger than the success of the An-72/71/74, with higher number of units produced). And in the smallest cathegory trainer aircrafts would be dominant. In the future I would expect:

- Transport aircrafts to be successful in the 2nd to 6th cathegories (since 20 tons payload).
- Airliner aircrafts to be successful in the 3rd to 6th cathegories (since 95-100 passengers + mid range >5000Km).
- Helicopters to be successful in the 6th to 12th cathegories (until 20 tons payload).
- Trainer aircrafts to be successful in the 9th and 13th cathegories.

The success is uncertain, even unlikely, for the rest of the options. As overall rule, I would avoid to invest on them.

I only miss from the list the Il-62, Il-86/80/96 and the An-124.

But then we can also look at the foreign aircrafts that have been most important for the Russian customers. Exposing the fleets of the most important Russian civil customers (airlines and air cargo companies), we see:

https://www.favt.ru/public/materials//e/b/8/9/5/eb89549831e6b870264709b135c089a7.pdf
https://www.favt.ru/public/materials//a/4/6/3/b/a463b5ebe5e2ef4c577c261652a38707.pdf

AEROFLOT (Russian stage): 1st Airliner, 2nd Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Aeroflot-Russian-Airlines + https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Aeroflot-Cargo + https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Aeroflot-Nord + https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Aeroflot-Don
Airbus A310: 14 always current+[recent]historic (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Airbus А319: 15 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A320: 93 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A321: 51 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Airbus A330: 22 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
Boeing:737: 88 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 13 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Boeing 777: 19 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
McDonnell Douglas DC-10/MD-11: 11 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
(An-124: 3)
(Il-86/80/96: 10)
(Su-Superjet: 59)
(Tu-134: 1 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory))
(Tu-204/214: 3)
(Yak-42/142: 1 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory))

AIRBRIDGECARGO: 1st Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/AirBridgeCargo
Boeing 737: 1 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 747: 29 (in the An-124 size cathegory)

ROSSIYA: 2nd Airliner, 5th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Rossiya-Russian-Airlines
Airbus А319: 31 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus А320: 14 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 737: 28 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 747: 9 (in the An-124 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 3 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Boeing 777: 10 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
(An-124: 2)
(Il-62: 1)
(Il-86/80/96: 4)
(Tu-154: 1 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory))
(Tu-204/214:5 )
An-148/158/178: 6 (in the An-72/71/74 size cathegory) All historic after sale)

S7AIRLINES: 3rd Airliner, 4th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/S7-Siberia-Airlines
Airbus A310: 9 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Airbus A319: 20 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A320: 25 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Airbus A321: 8 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 737: 35 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 2 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
(Tu-204/214: 2 )
Embraer ERJ-170: 17 (in the An-72/71/74 size cathegory)

VOLGA-DNEPR AIRLINES: 3rd Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Volga-Dnepr
(An-124: 14)
(Il-76: 6)

URAL AIRLINES: 4th Airliner, 9th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Ural-Airlines
Airbus A319: 7 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A320: 28 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Airbus A321: 16 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)

UTAIR: 5th Airliner, 6th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/UTair-Aviation
Airbus A321: 12 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 737: 56 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 757: 9 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 9 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
(Tu-134: 1 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory))
(Tu-154: 2 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory))
ATR 42/72 30 (in the An-24/26/30/32 size cathegory)
Bombardier CRJ-100 Series: 15 (in the An-24/26/30/32 size cathegory)

POBEDA: 6th Airliner 17th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Pobeda
Boeing:737: 21 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)

GLOBUS: 7th Airliner 10th Air-Cargo "Global Airline Guide 2017 (Part Two)". Airliner World (November 2017): 30.
Boeing:737: 21 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
(Tu-154: ? (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory))

ROYAL FLIGHT: 7th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Royal-Flight
Boeing:737: 2 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 757: 7 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 3 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)

AZUR AIR: 8th Airliner https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Azur-Air
Boeing:737: 6 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 757: 10 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 9 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Boeing 777: 1 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)

AVIASTAR-TU: 8th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Aviastar
Boeing 757: 1 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
(An-124: 1)
(Tu-204/214: 11 )

NORDWIND AIRLINES: 9th Airliner 27th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Nordwind-Airlines
Airbus A320: 1 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A321: 13 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Airbus A330: 4 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
Boeing:737: 15 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 757: 9 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 13 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Boeing 777: 9 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)

VIM-AVIA: 10th Airliner 12th Air-Cargo https://www.planespotters.net/airline/VIM-Airlines
Airbus А319: 4 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A330: 2 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
Boeing:737: 3 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 757: 15 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 767: 2 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Boeing 777: 14 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)


TOTAL: Top 10 Airliner + Top 10 Air-Cargo (2017: 83.36% Airliner + 90.99% Air-Cargo market share)
Boeing:737: 276 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Airbus A320: 161 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
Airbus A321: 100 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Airbus А319: 77 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory)
(Su-Superjet: 59)
Boeing 767: 54 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
Boeing 777: 53 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
Boeing 757: 51 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory)
Boeing 747: 38 (in the An-124 size cathegory)
ATR 42/72 30 (in the An-24/26/30/32 size cathegory)
Airbus A330: 28 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
Airbus A310: 23 (in the Il-62 size cathegory)
(Tu-204/214: 21)
(An-124: 20)
Embraer ERJ-170: 17 (in the An-72/71/74 size cathegory)
Bombardier CRJ-100 Series: 15 (in the An-24/26/30/32 size cathegory)
(Il-86/80/96: 14)
McDonnell Douglas DC-10/MD-11: 11 (in the Il-86/80/96 size cathegory)
(Il-76: 6 (in the Il-62 size cathegory))
An-148/158/178: 6 (in the An-72/71/74 size cathegory) All historic after sale)
(Tu-154: 3 (in the Tu-204/214 size cathegory))
(Tu-134: 2 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory))
(Il-62: 1)
(Yak-42/142: 1 (in the Su-SuperJet100 size cathegory))

TOTAL BY SIZE CATHEGORY: Top 10 Airliner + Top 10 Air-Cargo (2017: 83.36% Airliner + 90.99% Air-Cargo market share)
5th Size Cathegory (Tu-204/214): 451
6th Size Cathegory (Su-Superject100): 300
3rd Size Cathegory (Il-86/80/96): 106
4th Size Cathegory (Il-62, Il-76): 84
2nd Size Cathegory (An-124): 58
8th Size Cathegory (An-24/26/30/32): 45
7th Size Cathegory (An-72/71/74): 23
1st zize Cathegory (An-225): 0
9th Size Cathegory (Yak-130): 0
10th Size Cathegory (Che-22, L-410): 0
11th Size Cathegory (An-2/4/6): 0
12th Size Cathegory (Ka-226): 0
13th Size Cathegory (Yak-52): 0

This minimum research is enough to see which are the size cathegories with stronger demand and with bigger capability of generating revenues for the United Aircraft Corporation. This is a model that not only affects to Russia, is a model shared worldwide. The origin of this model of air transport is based in the costs and profitability, and the cost analysis in the auxiliary air transport is something that the Russian Armed Forces, share with civil companies. This is why analysis of priorities for the Russian Armed Forces agree with this reality:

eehnie wrote:According to it, this would be the order of priority for auxiliary aircrafts and helicopters:

0.- Su-SJ100 (I expect some order from the Russian Armed Forces in the short term).

1.- Ka-60/62 (in the Che-22 10th size class with around 2.5 tons payload)
2.- Tu-330 (in the Tu-204/214 5th size class with around 40 tons payload).
3.- Mi-46/AHL (in the An-72/71/74 7th size class with around 15 tons payload).
4.- Il-106/PTS Ermak 80 (in the An-22 3rd size class with around 80 tons payload).
5.- Il-276 (in the An-10/12 6th size class with around 20 tons payload).
6.- PTS Ermak 160 (in the An-124 2nd size class with around 160 tons payload).
7.- Tu-304/Frigate Freejet (in the Il-62 4th size class for double configuration: 1 mid passenger capacity + long range, 2 high passenger capacity + mid range).
8.- New Aircraft (in the Il-76/78 Be-A50 4th size class with around 60 tons payload).
9.- CRAIC CR929 (in the Il-86/80/96 3rd size class for high passenger capacity + long range).
10.- Ka-40 Minoga (in the Ka/27/28/29/31/32/35 9th size class with around 5 tons payload).
11.- New Helicopter (in the Mi-26/27 6th size class with around 20 tons payload.
12.- MS-21/Yak-242 (in the Tu-204/214 5th size class for mid passenger capacity + mid range).

In the previous data about leading companies, as example, you will see the reason of why the Ministry of Industry is giving high priority to the MS-21/Yak-242. It is a project of high civil interest despite to be of lower military interest (the Russian Armed Forces order still the Tu-204/214 unlike the civil customers that moved to foreign models). It is right, and the Russian Armed Forces need to do nothing to get the aircraft available.

In overall terms, the reality emerges easily, and this is the real problem of your argument, GarryB. The real data do not agree with your comments. The crisis has been real for all, but some models of some cathegories resisted it better, and are exiting of the crisis stronger. The market is not like it was in 1990, and the recovery will not give as result a restoration of the situation of 1990. And this has been also a mistake in the words of Vladimir79, blaming of the weak demand of small aircrafts only to the crisis.

The data in support of the supposed demand of the Il-112 (8th Size Cathegory) is weak, because of its own demand and because of the demand in the cathegories around is still weaker. It is very difficult to make this aircraft a success.

And the case of the TVS 2DTS (10th Size Cathegory is weaker still. Do you want to know how many and which aircrafts reached 200 units produced completed in the Russian environment in the period 1994-2018 (both included)? In these 25 years, between the Russian aircrafts and helicopters only the Mi-8 family, that has also a combat component, reached 200. In the following years someone else will do, but is fairly difficult.

Instead of talking about the last village of Siberia in order to try to justify the development of marginal projects out of the interest of the main custormers, would be more interesting for the United Aircraft Corporation to be focused in the aircrafts used by most of the population, because these models also fit well the needs of air transport of the Russian Armed Forces in most of the cases.

Some limitation on post length should be introduced.

Polar Airlines one of the many regional airlines

Fleet
17 Antonov An-2
3 Antonov An-3T
3 Antonov An-24
6 Antonov An-26
1 L-410
26 Mil Mi-8
with an order placed for 200 TVS 2DTS aircraft

The Su-Superjet100, Yak-130, Mi-Ansat, Ka-226 and Il-103 surpassed this level of sales in this time of crisis.

Well there you go... the end of the cold war meant that the standard Russian jet trainer is a foreign aircraft in the form of the L-39.

The requirement to replace it led to the development of several aircraft, including one from MiG, one from Myacechev (spelling) and one from Yakovlev.

the Yak aircraft was successful and achieved quite a number of sales because the requirement to replace the L39s was quite urgent... foreign aircraft with foreign engines and a role that was critical for the Air Force.

Ansat and Ka-226 were also needed because the Mi-2 is foreign produced too and also urgently needed replacing.

The superjet was also clearly a weight class aircraft that was deemed needing a new aircraft to fill a gap left by aging soviet aircraft...

The An-2 fits rather well within this group, but until now a viable alternative has not been ready... now it is and it already has 200 orders.

The origin of this model of air transport is based in the costs and profitability, and the cost analysis in the auxiliary air transport is something that the Russian Armed Forces, share with civil companies. This is why analysis of priorities for the Russian Armed Forces, agree with this reality:

Bullshit.

You have listed a lot of western civil aircraft in service with Russian civilian airlines, where is the list of Russian military air groups using those same western aircraft?

It does not exist, because the Russian military uses only Soviet aircraft... and is in the process of Russianising those aircraft too... An-124s will get Russian engines and Russian avionics.... An-22s are leaving service, An-12s will be leaving service over the next decade or so to be replaced by the Il-276, the An-24/26 light transports are being replaced with a combination of Il-112 and Il-114.

An-2s will be replaced with Baikals.

In overall terms, the reality emerges easily, and this is the real problem of your argument, GarryB. The real data do not agree with your comments. The crisis has been real for all, but some models of some cathegories resisted it better, and are exiting of the crisis stronger. The market is not like it was in 1990, and the recovery will not give as result a restoration of the situation of 1990.

the life span of different aircraft is different... depending on use and design some aircraft can continue for decades like the An-2s, while others need lots more support and when that support requires communication with the Ukraine or the west then sometimes that plane needs to be replaced early.

The data in support of the supposed demand of the Il-112 (8th Size Cathegory) is weak, because of its own demand and because of the demand in the cathegories around is still weaker. It is very difficult to make this aircraft a success.

The An-24/6 was widely used and very popular and a wide variety of variants could be made including electronics aircraft...

Twin turboprop aircraft are widely used around the world for the short hop flights of less than 1,000km between air ports... if I book a flight to Christchurch or Wellington odds are I will be on an ATR-72 twin turboprop rather than a jet like a 737.

Instead of talking about the last village of Siberia in order to try to justify the development of marginal projects out of the interest of the main custormers, would be more interesting for the United Aircraft Corporation to be focused in the aircrafts used by most of the population, because these models also fit well the needs of air transport of the Russian Armed Forces in most of the cases.

Russia is not yet a country with high quality paved runways every 200km, so aircraft like the Baikal make sense in a lot of regions there and also in a lot of other places.

The An-2 is popular in the US even though they can't be used commercially... think about that... you can't make money transporting goods or people with them, or use them for sight seeing or anything... yet people buy them... that is AMAZING.

Personally I would love one myself with floats/skis instead of wheels and a nice Russian engine... I would fly up to central otago and land on a lake and do some fishing for a day... enough room inside to sleep 3-4 people... and then fly back when I have finished...

Polar Airlines one of the many regional airlines

In polar regions especially this aircraft will be ideal... and looking at their current fleet I would suspect Il-112s and Il-114s in their future order book too.

Polar Airlines is just one of many regional airlines in Russia now think about other ex soviet countries and other countries like Mongolia, Laos Cambodia Thailand Myanmar Sri Lanka, South American and African markets etc etc.

I was living in Jinka Ethiopia and homa bay kenya. Both have airports. Jinka was just opening when I was leaving (new airport old one was knackered) although jinka is a pretty big runway which is for larger cargo traffic the passenger need is smaller due to poverty but some are rich enough to fly and the medical services are dire in this area this is where the TVS 2DTS comes in handy. I've also flown into arba minch Ethiopia another small airfield which isn't well maintained. As for homa bay kenya it's been sporadic with flights due to cost of operating larger aircraft on the service. Yet again a cheaper to operate aircraft would make it more affordable for the people. TVS 2DTS yet again solves this problem.