Despite what you read elsewhere, the aircraft are in the same class. One has slightly better range and payload but the other has 20-30% more fuel efficiency. It is a trade-off and now we are ordering 40 Ukrainian aircaft while we have only ordered 38 Il-476.
I am sorry but you are wrong.
If the An-70 could replace the IL-76 then it should also replace the Il-476 so they should be ordering 78 An-70s and 0 Il-476s.
Or are they going to change their policy of buying foreign when local stuff isn't good enough?
I have read with all the composites and electronic stuff the An-70 is three times the cost of the Il-76M and its engines are very unreliable at the moment.
As I said, the An-70 can carry a heavy payload, but its range with that heavy payload is poor. It couldn't even fly to Australia from New Zealand with a max payload of 47 tons which makes it a theatre range medium transport. With a light payload of 20 tons it range becomes strategic, so it is a strategic light transport AND a theatre rand medium transport. The Il-76 series are medium weight strategic transports.
The secret is in the change in range.
The An-70s range drops dramatically at max weight because it has to reduce fuel capacity to take off.
The Il-76 is a strategic medium transport that does not reduce its fuel weight to carry a bit of extra payload.
If they wanted to I am sure they could offload fuel and increase payload to the 80-90 ton range, but the flight range without inflight refuelling would make it a theatre range transport and it is a strategic range transport by design.
A transport plane that requires inflight refuelling all the time is a very bad thing... they would be better off using the next size up aircraft (ie the An-22 in this case).
The A-400M is not a replacement for the C-17, it is a replacement for the C-130.
If the payload needing shifting is 30 tons and therefore too heavy for the C-130 they will of course use the A-400M instead of the C-17 because it is always cheaper to use the smaller aircraft, and in theory there should be more smaller aircraft available most of the time.
Transport hubs have different requirements based on the quality of the strips which often limit the types of aircraft that can operate there.
The An-70s lack of ability to land on rough strips at max weight is no problem because it will be delivering the sort of stores that the An-12 would have delivered, so in practise it can deliver 10 tons more over a similar range to the An-12 to a rough airstrip.
Are there situations where the An-70 can do the job of an Il-76?
Of course there are. Previously if you needed to move more than 20 tons but less than 50 tons... even over a relatively short distance then the only choice was with an Il-76. You could use an An-22 of course or an An-124, but an Il-76 would probably be better suited.
With the An-70 you can move 47 tons over distances of 1,000km or so.
The An-70 gives you more options but there is no way it can replace the Il-76s... it compliments them.
It is a management issue otherwise you'd just buy all An-124s because they could handle anything over any range, but using an An-124 to move 2 tons of post between bases 500km apart is poor solution to the problem.
Sometimes however you use the tools you have available... in Afghanistan stores were carried to hilltop bases that were surrounded by minefields by huge Mi-8 helicopters when something much smaller might have been more efficient.
The environment and altitude and heat and availability of helos meant it was the Mi-8 that was used for the job.
The An-70 offers more flexibility in that it has a lot of overlap in performance with the aircraft above it (Il-76) and completely fulfils the role of the aircraft it is replacing (An-12).
BTW I am glad to see they are retaining the 23mm tail gun.
One of its primary uses is with Chaff and Flare rounds that can generate a cloud of chaff or flares very quickly. Modern IR seeker missiles don't see hotspots anymore so the only way flares can be effective is if they form a large shape that could be mistaken for an aircraft. Salvos of existing flares are normally used but you run out fairly quickly using them at that rate. From a 23mm cannon spitting out IR flare and chaff shells at 3,000 shells per minute is much more effective.
Regarding the figures you give, the closest aircraft to the Il-476 would probably be the Il-76TF which is based on the Il-76MF and its details are here:
Including a max payload of 60 tons and a flight range with that 60 tons of 4,000km.
The figure given for 40 tons is 6,300 km, so we can roughly split that and say that for 50 tons the range will be something like 5,150km or so.
The Antonov site seems to be down at the moment so the only figures I have state what I have posted above. Range with 47 ton payload is 1,350km from a concrete strip.