Il-112V/Il-212 light military transport

Since not even the US builds and designs its own light transport, why not just buy from china as a stopgap before the PD-8 is in service?
I think the An-72 with the PD-8 would be wonderful. Much better fuel efficiency and power. The old airframes can be reingined too, and as it looks right now building a proven airframe with a new engine, rather than a new unproven airframe with an old engine is superior.

Also for the An-140 was planned a military airlifter modification with a rear ramp based on the civilian passenger. The same thing can be done for the TVRS-44 Ladoga, which in that case will become the real An-26 replacement.

I am no expert but I would think going the other way would be much easier... you guys seem to have a soft spot for Antonov... would you think a modification of the Il-96 for cargo use with a ramp rear door would make any sense?

At the very least it would mess up the rear end aerodynamics and in terms of structure it would be a bit of a nightmare.

I would say passenger versions of the Il-112 and Il-114 would make rather more sense for the L610 replacements and perhaps shortened versions for replacing the L-410.

The Il-112V does not exist today, the only copy that had crashed, and it crashed because it is a bad plane, poorly planned from the beginning.

They have all the design drawings etc and own the design... they built a prototype and found problems but they claim they fixed those problems and the new prototype is supposed to have sorted out the problems... which means suggesting it is a bad plane is just bullshit.

Antonov vapourware should not be an option.

At first it could only take flight without a load, since it is too heavy. After weight was removed and even so it can not carry the minimum weight required, not only is it too heavy but the configuration of the tail forces to put a counterweight on the nose losing more payload than it should in addition to the fact that the materials are too heavy , should carry a greater amount of more modern lightweight composite materials

They found design problems with the original design and they reportedly fixed those problems and issues.

Besides what the parts are made in Russia or not, how many parts of the Antonov planes do you think were made in the Ukraine.?

Doesn't matter, Ukrainian design is Ukrainian design.

Antonov is dead.

Polikarpov is dead too and out of Polikarpov rose MiG...

That is the reason why Ukraine will not manufacture any aircraft again and Russia could easily resume the manufacture of any Antonov,

Not a reason for Russia to do so.

Right now the problems are engine related so there is a necessary delay, which can be used to get Russian designs ready for testing and production.

Wasting time on dead end designs is just wasting time.

The Russian military set goals eliminating cold war era weapons and vehicles and equipment... if they are going to continue with the Il-476 then it makes sense to get rid of the Antonovs... they are close to replace the hardest Antonov to replace... the An-2..., and the An-22 is already gone.. just the An-12 and An-124 and the An-24.25.26.72s to go.

Even if several years from now the fiasco could be fixed by losing time, money, not to mention the lives of several irreplaceable designers, the plane has characteristics that are far inferior to the two competitors that exist on the market, which on the other hand are modernized versions of earlier aircraft

They stated the problems have already been identified and sorted out on the new prototype...

The C-295 is a more modern version of the CN-235 of the 1980s, which improved the characteristics and the max. payload from 6 to 9.5 t.

I am guessing the solution was new engines?

New engines will fix most problems.

The C-295 is a more modern version of the CN-235 of the 1980s, which improved the characteristics and the max. payload from 6 to 9.5 t.
The C-27 is a more modern version of the Alenia C-222 from the 1970s and its pàyoad also increased significantly to 11 t.
The big difference is that the C-295 is more designed for paratroopers with a cargo bay that is very low (1.90m) but longer and can accommodate Humvees, while the C-27 is much taller (2.70m) , wide and short and can accommodate higher loads such as a light truck

Fantastic, but like the Antonovs these are foreign aircraft types that are not really options for the Russian military who don't need to consider whether these planes will sell on the international market or not, they have specific requirements that need to be met... if the makers want something to sell to the rest of the world they can modify the designs for themselves for that.

An aircraft like the Il-112 makes no sense nowadays and even less to do it from scratch, to make a plane useless today
Not even the USA spent time and money developing a light cargo aircraft, they just bought the C-27 and C-235/295.

America has never been a leader to follow with regards to military purchases... likely they realised they couldn't sell light planes for half a billion each so they didn't offer up a product in that size and weight class.

The truth is that just the aircraft that Russia needs, and only the end of the USSR and the corrupt Ukrainian leaders prevented Russia from replacing the An-26 with An-72 as planned.

Well plans change.

In fact, what has happened in recent years is that almost all the russian available An-72s have been taken out of the reserve at the same time that the An-12 is gradually being returned

Which means when they are worn out they will need to be replaced too... the Il-276 being a jet will fill a few different roles all at once... it will be an An-12 replacement but could also replace the An-72 and An-32 too and with better speed and range at the lower payload weights.

The aircraft has the engines above the wing which allows it to take off and land with a cargo of several tons.
The ministry wants to have the takeoff weight, the range and payload increased, the Izvestia daily writes.

Wanting it modified suggests an Il-276 would actually be a more useful aircraft, and together with a Tu-330 which would be better suited to the heavier light vehicles they are introducing...

Prospective concepts have to be designed and tested, but modernization of available aircraft is a reasonable and efficient path," he said.

Existing aircraft are not going to last forever though...

I doubt very much that the crashed Il-112 could lift even 3 tons of cargo in the conditions that the project was in, it's pure shit, if you have to wait for a new decent engine you will run out of planes before

Sometimes you say very stupid things... any twin engined aircraft would crash if one engine fails and that engine fails to autofeather the blades on that engine... nothing at all to do with the aircraft design and everything to do with aerodynamics.

Newer props are even worse because of their large blade surface area not rotating at speed if the engine fails.

Essentially it deployed an airbrake while flying at low altitude and low speed while the crew were dealing with an engine fire that had spread to the wing.

With a little modernization and improving the weight with more modern materials, a successful aircraft can be achieved, better than the two competitors in most aspects.

If Ilyusion can't fix the Il-112 to do the job the Russian military had better learn to walk.

AN-74T-200A

Description:
It is intended for airlifting of 10 tones of cargo in containers, stacked on pallets, as well as self-propelled and non self-propelled vehicles.

Instead of investing in a foreign plane that is rather old, it makes more sense to invest in a Russian plane... or develop a new one.

If they want a 10 ton cargo capacity twin jet then the Il-276 should exceed their expectations over potentially enormous distances to the far north and far east even with the expansion of the rail network which is also important.

I'm not any kind of expert on the subject, but i agree that Il-112V looks like dead end program.

Why is everyone so quick to write the plane off?

It had one crash.

It is incredible to me that you can complain its performance is not good enough and then suggest a rather old Orc plane could do the job if you spend money upgrading it and improving it to get its performance to where it needs to be... why piss away money on an orc plane that is dead and kill a Russian plane that you want to be stillborn?

Production capacity to make An-72s can be upgraded to make Il-112s and the design can be adapted and improved to get the necessary performance, but it wont be working on its own, there will be Il-114s and Il-276s and Tu-330s for that matter that need to be put into production and service.

Just waiting for engines.

Since not even the US builds and designs its own light transport, why not just buy from china as a stopgap before the PD-8 is in service?

Well if America does it then that is the opposite of what Russia should be doing.

Russia has an aircraft industry... if you want to piss all over it and buy foreign planes to save time but still have to wait for engines the Russian types are waiting for, then you might as well go for the Russian types.

The old airframes can be reingined too, and as it looks right now building a proven airframe with a new engine, rather than a new unproven airframe with an old engine is superior.

Really? So the new second stage engines in Su-35s will be better than Su-57Ms?

Proven in this case just means in stock, but how many more could they possibly want to build?

If they already have 50 in storage and are bringing them out to upgrade them that sounds like what they are doing with T-72s in the Army... if you don't however spend any money on T-90s and T-14s then that is going to really bite you in the arse because no one will be able to make light planes... just like the problems with fighter trainer aircraft and light helicopters they had when the countries they had producing them for Russia decided Russia was the enemy.

How often does that have to happen?

Combining a reply from the other thread.

GarryB wrote:

Rodion Romanovic wrote:
However the il-112v has demonstrated that is a stillborn project which would basically require a huge effort to turn it into an acceptable product.

What a load of crap... they have one crash and haters are going to hate... well the Superjet has had crashes too... as did the fabled An-70...

Rodion Romanovic wrote:
What I find very important for Russia is also the contribution of relatively new players as the Ural civil aviation plant in Ekaterinburg, which has also a dedicated design bureau and engine department, and basically developed the real successor to the An-24 using the let L-610 prototype as baseline. I see the TVRS-44 Ladoga as the new An-24.

So you see the brand new Il-112 as a bad design but bringing back from the dead the L-410 and L-610 designs is the way forward?

Interesting.

Rodion Romanovic wrote:
Same thing (development of a variant with rear ramp, as the An-26 was developed from the An-24) can be done for the TVRS-44.
Of course such development requires effort, but not more than fixing the Il-112V.

You seem very sure of that, but what happens in 4 years time when the Czechs are looking for easy money and decide that these Russian designs are unlicensed copies of their designs and Russia owes them money for design royalties and starts seizing Russian aircraft in third party countries?

Rodion Romanovic wrote:
Ilyushin recently had too many projects in the hand and to little people.

Ilyusion is part of the UAC company... they should have a large pool of engineers they can shift around where needed, the least used branches should have plenty of staff to spare who could gain good experience.

Rodion Romanovic wrote:
As far as the An-72 /74, it is an aircraft that I like and it fits some roles quite important for Russia.

It is a Soviet ERA aircraft that should be getting replaced right now with new design projects for new engineers to cut their teeth on instead of just rehashing old Soviet shit.

Of course you have old guys near retirement and young bucks who have never made anything because they keep upgrading old shit instead of phasing in a few new designs.

Now lot of planes need to get the chop before they start killing people and they have the problem of not enough engineers to do all the jobs at once.

As far as the il112v, it is also a not new project. Work on it started in 1994.

So it is also not a new design.
Some old things are still useful and worth of new versions/modernisation. Some stillborn projects are instead unfortunately a huge mess, some of the project never developed, however are very promising (e.g. Tu-330).

It is not because of the crash that I do not like the Il-112v.

As far as TVRS-44 Ladoga, it is a Russian plane and it is already planned to be produced to replace the An-24 and foreign dash-8 currently still in service in many regional routes.

Since the TVRS-44 is the real An-24 replacement, it would make sense to do a An-26 replacement (which is a derivative of An-24 with a rear ramp) based on it.

This article seems more detailed than what I saw posted here before so I am adding it.

The cause of the crash of the Il-112V prototype
03 September 2021

A five minute read on the unofficial analysis of the fatal crash of the Il-112V prototype.

The Russian newspaper Kommersant has published an analysis by the Ministry of Industry and Trade (Minpromtorg) and the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) describing the root cause of the catastrophy with the experimental Ilyushin Il-112V.

The aircraft crashed during a preparation flight on 17 August 2021, five days before the start of the Army-2021 forum, between the village of Nikolskoye and the Odintsovo urban district of the Moscow region.

According to this analysis, the critical situation on board was caused by a starboard engine fire which caused structural collapse of the right aileron. This failure sent the aircraft into an uncontrolled side roll at low altitude and the aircraft crashed into the ground almost inverted. There was nothing that the test pilots of PJSC Ilyushin, Hero of Russia Nikolai Kuimov and Dmitry Komarov, as well as test flight engineer Nikolai Khludeev, could do in this situation to save the aircraft and themselves.

Experts from the Minpromtorg and the IAC established that the development of the disaster started with the loss of gas-dynamic stability of the starboard TV7-117ST engine a few minutes after takeoff. The engine surge following the loss of stability was accompanied by flame bursts and the combination probably led to a partial destruction of the turbine, with the debris, in turn, having damaged the adjacent fuel lines. This led to a powerful kerosene-fueled fire in the internal cavities of the engine nacelle and the right wing of the Il-112V.

The people who first noticed the fire were the dispatchers of the Kubinka airfield from where the aircraft took off and they immediately informed the crew about the problem via radio comms. The crew confirmed that they had a warning panel light already lit up and that the first stage of the fire extinguishing system working in the automatic mode has already engaged. This resulted the flame retardant foam having been released into the nacelle from the adjacent high-pressure fire extinguisher cylinder.

The crew reacted to the alarm promptly. Having realized that the first foam attack was not successful, the pilots subsequently manually activated the second stage of the fire extinguishing system, alas to no avail.

As explained by sources close to the investigation team, both fire extinguishing systems on the Il-112V were primarily focused on the engines, therefore the foam formed from carbon dioxide enriched by inert gases mainly filled the engine nacelle. Unfortunately, by that time the fire had already spread into the inner wing cavity. Even worse, the manufacturer has only mounted two fire extinguishing systems for each engine of the Il-112V, therefore there was nothing else left to suppress the fire with. The existence of mere two foam bursts has proven to be a design fault, in comparison, the fire extinguishing system for civil Ilyushin aircraft can provide six.

The pilots were left with no other choice than to return to the airfield of departure and request for an immediate emergency landing. Based on the cockpit recordings, the experienced crew acted smoothly and precisely. The commander, without the slightest sign of panic, ordered the second pilot 'Emergency Situation', he also calmly summed up on the execution of the procedures, reporting that the burning engine was safely stopped and that the blades of the starboard engine propeller were set on feathering. The crew also correctly positioned the rudders of the aircraft and selected a single engine operating mode, so despite the raging fire and asymmetric thrust, the crippled aircraft took an almost ideal straight course to the Kubinka runway, which was less than two kilometers away. The experts unite in their opinion that the crew, now struggling for survival, were perfectly able to successfully land the struggling hauler that way.

Unfortunately, this is where the aircraft has failed them once again. In the 45th second after the start of the fire, the temperature in the cavity of the right wing reached 600 degrees which resulted in a structural collapse of the aileron support strut. A temperature of 650 degrees is critical for the material (D16 duraluminium) from which the strut and most other parts of the aircraft’s wing were made of, but already at 600 degrees the hinges holding the right aileron in the lowered position, started to creep and lose elasticity.

After the collapse of the strut, the aileron, which enabled the pilots to balance out the asymmetry and ensure the straight flight of the aircraft, returned back to the neutral position and the machine began to roll to the right while losing altitude. Based on the released footage, at the beginning the roll occured slowly but the crew already must have known that the process was irreversible. The pilots could not influence the behavior of the aircraft anymore and, apparently, as experienced as they were, they did not consider it necessary to comment on the critical situation. There was no recorded communication on the intercom in the last seconds of the flight and the crew seem to have died in complete silence. The investigators of the accident have stated that it was impossible for the pilots to get the plane out of the roll in such conditions and that only by coincidence the aircraft did not crash in the Patriot Park, over which the demonstration flight of the Il-112V should have occured.

So, the true reason for the tragedy was obviosuly poor preparedness of the prototype for test flights and the possible haste with its commissioning. The crashed example No. 0001, assembled by the PJSC VASO (Voronezh Aircraft Manufacturing Company), was the only flight example of the Il-112V type, with an additional airframe serving as a static testbed. During its short lifespan, the first prototype only managed to take 23 flights, with most of them only lasting for a few minutes. On top of that, the aircraft was grounded for two years (between March 2019 and March 2021) due to numerous technical flaws which needed to be eliminated while most complaints were related to the TV7-117ST engines, manufactured by JSC UEC-Klimov.

In the light of this situation, the decision to demonstrate the experimental prototype on the MAKS 2021 held in July 2021, and then on the Army-2021 Forum, held from 22 to 28 August starts to look dubious, at best.

As experts believe, the unnecessary haste created the conditions for a disaster, but whether this opinion will become the official conclusion of the commission of the Minpromtorg is not yet clear. In the meantime, Russian president Vladimir Putin posthumously awarded the crew with the Order of Courage, a state decoration of the Russian Federation to recognise 'selfless act of courage, valour and dedication shown in testing and mastering new aviation technology.'

https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/the-cause-of-the-crash-of-the-il-112v-prototype

caveat emptor wrote:AMCXXL, this is one of the best posst I've  seen on this forum. Very analytical and precise.
I'm not any kind of expert on the subject, but i agree that Il-112V looks like dead end program. That plane doesn't even pass eye test. Its body looks out of proportions with size of the wing surface .
I do have a question, though. Which engine does Russia have that could accommodate An-72? Maybe they could derate PD-8?

Yes, obviously the Il-276 was canceled last year and the Il-112V doesn't look like it's going to get very far, there's something wrong with that plane
The war will change the plans a lot and a military transport plane is not a place where you have to spend a lot of money if you already have valid options.

I don't know if the PD-8 can accommodate that plane, but it doesn't need more power than the engine that the latest versions of D36 3A and 4A that An-74 carry.
When the Ukraine is defeated , Zaporozhye plants of Motor Sich and Progress and all its designs will become the property of the Russian state just like the Kharkov aircraft plant

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

caveat emptor wrote:AMCXXL, this is one of the best posst I've  seen on this forum. Very analytical and precise.
I'm not any kind of expert on the subject, but i agree that Il-112V looks like dead end program. That plane doesn't even pass eye test. Its body looks out of proportions with size of the wing surface .
I do have a question, though. Which engine does Russia have that could accommodate An-72? Maybe they could derate PD-8?

The Sam-146 is rated between 68–80 kN (15,000–18,000 lbf (6.9 - 8.15 tons) and the PD-8 should be equivalent.

The D-36 of the An72 was rated 63.9 kN (14,330 lbf, 6.5 tons). 

Either a derate or a  version /variant with a smaller LP compressor (booster) and LP turbine. 
A variant could be more efficient and possibly also useful for an eventual shortened version of the SSJ100.

Of course it will need a new nacelle for installation above the wings (and a different one from the Be-200) as the positioning on the wing is totally different
An-72

The power and main characteristics of the D35 versions seem similar, I suppose the difference will be in the efficiency

Series 1A/2A	63.75	5.6:1	20:1	1,333	3,192	1124	?	Antonov An-72 Antonov An-74
Series 3A	63.75	5.6:1	20:1	1,333	3,192	1124	?	Antonov An-74
Series 4A	63.75	5.6:1	20:1	1,333	3,732	1130	2002	An-74TK-300

limb wrote:Since not even the US builds and designs its own light transport, why not just buy from china as a stopgap before the PD-8 is in service?
I think the An-72 with the PD-8 would be wonderful. Much better fuel efficiency and power. The old airframes can be reingined too, and as it looks right now building a proven airframe with a new engine, rather than a new unproven airframe with an old engine is superior.

This is the point, you are building a new airframe that doesn't even work with an old engine that is useless for this type of aircraft, when you have a design that works and a notor that works once you beat the Ukraine
The An-72/74 exceeds in performance and usefulness what it is intended to do
Perhaps it would be necessary to redesign the body of the plane slightly wider/higher, just a few centimeters more, and use lighter materials, although I think it is not even necessary, since the Russians do not use the standardized NATO pallet system nor do they intend to sell aircraft to any NATO country

At one time, the Soviets should not have discontinued the production of the An-12 aircraft, but only improved it.
The Il-76 buried the An-12 aircraft. By comparison, the US is still producing the C-130.
The Chinese are still building the Shaanxi Y-8, which is a copy of the An-12. An example of Chinese refinement is the Shaanxi Y-9.

Podlodka77 wrote:At one time, the Soviets should not have discontinued the production of the An-12 aircraft, but only improved it.
The Il-76 buried the An-12 aircraft. By comparison, the US is still producing the C-130.
The Chinese are still building the Shaanxi Y-8, which is a copy of the An-12. An example of Chinese refinement is the Shaanxi Y-9.

Il-76 replaced the An-12 in the Military Transport Aviation.
The An-12s that remained in service later are for secondary missions

As of today VKS operates at most 40 An-12s and their number continues to decrease every year, it is most likely that the old soviet Il-76MD will be used once the new Il-476s arrive to the VTA regiments

In reality, a suitable mixture of An-72/74 and Il-76 is enough for Russia Armed Forces.

Many countries have replaced their C-130 and An-12 with A-400M, so an An-12 type aircraft is not necessary for many Air Forces today, and certainly not the Il-112 if you make something better as an An-74 in the territories to be liberated such as Kharkov

GarryB wrote:

Antonov vapourware should not be an option

Antonov vapourware works and likes Shoigu

AMCXXL wrote:

Podlodka77 wrote:At one time, the Soviets should not have discontinued the production of the An-12 aircraft, but only improved it.
The Il-76 buried the An-12 aircraft. By comparison, the US is still producing the C-130.
The Chinese are still building the Shaanxi Y-8, which is a copy of the An-12. An example of Chinese refinement is the Shaanxi Y-9.

Il-76 replaced the An-12 in the Military Transport Aviation.
The An-12s that remained in service later are for secondary missions

As of today VKS operates at most 40 An-12s and their number continues to decrease every year, it is most likely that the old soviet Il-76MD will be used once the new Il-476s arrive to the VTA regiments

In reality, a suitable mixture of An-72/74 and Il-76 is enough for Russia Armed Forces.

Many countries have replaced their C-130 and An-12 with A-400M, so an An-12 type aircraft is not necessary for many Air Forces today, and certainly not the Il-112 if you make something better as an An-74 in the territories to be liberated such as Kharkov

And the An-72 is approaching its operational end also in the near future.
That A-400M aircraft is again significantly more expensive than the C-130 and An-12. The An-70 does not have a long enough range to compete with the Il-76MD-90A because the An-70 with a payload of 38 tons has a range of a few hundred kilometers less than the Il-76MD 90A with a payload of 60 tons. Therefore, the workhorse and basic transport aircraft of the TA VVS remains the Il-76.
Considering the area of ​​Russia, I would still go for the variant that has the highest load capacity of 20 tons or from 20 to 40 tons. Il-112 is excellent, but only for paratroopers and VDV, while the carrying capacity is insufficient, at least if we consider the transport of military equipment. Il-112 is good for transporting soldiers or paratroopers, as well as for transporting food or ammunition of small weight.
I think a smaller aircraft than the Il-76 would be an excellent option for the VVS, but I would rather go with the Il-276 than the Il-112.
Of course, this is just my opinion and therefore not authoritative.

Yes, obviously the Il-276 was canceled last year and the Il-112V doesn't look like it's going to get very far, there's something wrong with that plane

I have only seen a blog link suggesting the Il-276 is cancelled... and even assuming it is it was an idea to replace the Il-214 MTA, so if they have actually rejected the Il-276 idea (which being an Il-476 with shorter fuselage and shorter wings with two engines of the same type instead of four which was suggested because it should be the fastest and safest design modification option to get an aircraft into service the fastest) then the Il-214 and the Tu-330 ideas remain... the latters chances have improved dramatically because of the Tu-204/214 design being put into serial production...

Using the increased production of the Tupolevs to get foreign types replaced in civilian service faster, as production of newer designs, more efficient designs with newer engines become available the Tupolevs can be reverted into transport types (ie side doors, not ramp doors which is a much bigger conversion).

Once they reach that stage the production facilities could start making Tupolevs for the military to replace the many obsolete older airline based aircraft types like the Il-20 and Il-22 and Il-38 and also the Tu-154m and Tu-134s and Yak-40s etc etc, which means with all those aircraft that are going to be made and put into service that a transport type based on the design, which is the Tu-330 makes a lot of sense because it was supposed to have about 70% commonality with the airliner version despite its rear ramp door.

The war will change the plans a lot and a military transport plane is not a place where you have to spend a lot of money if you already have valid options.

Upgrading and continuing to use foreign types are not valid options... Russia first.

When the Ukraine is defeated , Zaporozhye plants of Motor Sich and Progress and all its designs will become the property of the Russian state just like the Kharkov aircraft plant

When Nazy/US proxy Ukraine is defeated it makes more sense to let Antonov and Motor Sich and Ivchenko-Progress die... the investments needed to revive them would be too much and anything you create would not replace what has been lost. Building new factories and businesses makes sense but make them part of UAC and make them production rather than design centres... they can be expansions of Ilyusion and Tupolev and Klimov to make transport planes and engines for helicopters and ships etc etc.

This new territory is Russia... if any neutral territory wants to make that sort of stuff then what market will they sell to?

The An-72/74 exceeds in performance and usefulness what it is intended to do

But do you need a twin jet with 10 ton payload and a twin jet with a 20 ton payload?

I think the main advantage of the An-72 was its jet speed... if the An-12 replacement is going to be a twin jet then the Il-214 or Il-276 would make more sense as it would replace both the An-72/74, and the An-12 in one aircraft.

An An-72 with better flight range with the same payload or the capacity to carry even more payload over the same distance would make good sense.

Perhaps it would be necessary to redesign the body of the plane slightly wider/higher, just a few centimeters more, and use lighter materials, although I think it is not even necessary, since the Russians do not use the standardized NATO pallet system nor do they intend to sell aircraft to any NATO country

Being able to use international standard pallet systems is useful but not essential if Russian pallet systems are compatible then obviously they would want any foreign country to use their system instead of the American system.

At one time, the Soviets should not have discontinued the production of the An-12 aircraft, but only improved it.
The Il-76 buried the An-12 aircraft. By comparison, the US is still producing the C-130.

The time to upgrade it would have been the late 1980s and early 1990s... perhaps new more efficient engines, but there was no money and no urgency because other things needed attention. In the early 1990s they had way too much stuff and were better focussed on what to scrap or sell as excess material they wouldn't need in the future.

The US is massively overcharging for the C-130 because there is no An-12 replacement... but then there is no C-130 replacement either.

The Il-76 is in a totally different weight class and always was... double to triple its payload weight capacity over double the flight range.

In reality, a suitable mixture of An-72/74 and Il-76 is enough for Russia Armed Forces.

Replacement of the old Antonovs makes sense, domestically and internationally. 10 ton capacity to 60 ton capacity is quite a jump in size and operational costs... with Il-112s and Il-114s entering widespread service for civil and military use the 10 ton capacity of the An-72 is a bit weak and on the light side... 20-35 tons over decent distances would be more flexible and useful without being as expensive as a bigger plane like an Il-76 based four engine design.

Many countries have replaced their C-130 and An-12 with A-400M, so an An-12 type aircraft is not necessary for many Air Forces today, and certainly not the Il-112 if you make something better as an An-74 in the territories to be liberated such as Kharkov

The high cost of the C-130 makes the high cost but better performance of the A-400M seem worth it, but it is the absense of a decent An-12 replacement that stops it from being replaced with anything else other than the available A-400M.

Even the An-70 would be a better choice than the A-400M, but it is not an option either.

Il-214 and Tu-330s would be very useful replacements for An-72s and An-12s because of their jet speeds and increased internal capacities.

Antonov vapourware works and likes Shoigu

Antonov is dead, let it go. Expanding Myasishchev makes more sense... any Antonov engineers could join them to expand their potential.

Creating an entity of Antonov in UAC would create a hive of 5th columnists of the worst kind.

I think a smaller aircraft than the Il-76 would be an excellent option for the VVS, but I would rather go with the Il-276 than the Il-112.
Of course, this is just my opinion and therefore not authoritative.

The Il-76 is still to big to be the small aircraft... so why go for the An-72 at 10 ton payload and x range when you can have Il-214 or Tu-330 with 20-35 ton payloads and much better range... or the same payload and even better range with the extra payload capacity being extra fuel to extend flight range.

And new Russian designs instead of old obsolete Ukrainian designs.

Podlodka77 wrote:
And the An-72 is approaching its operational end also in the near future.
That A-400M aircraft is again significantly more expensive than the C-130 and An-12. The An-70 does not have a long enough range to compete with the Il-76MD-90A because the An-70 with a payload of 38 tons has a range of a few hundred kilometers less than the Il-76MD 90A with a payload of 60 tons. Therefore, the workhorse and basic transport aircraft of the TA VVS remains the Il-76.
Considering the area of ​​Russia, I would still go for the variant that has the highest load capacity of 20 tons or from 20 to 40 tons. Il-112 is excellent, but only for paratroopers and VDV, while the carrying capacity is insufficient, at least if we consider the transport of military equipment. Il-112 is good for transporting soldiers or paratroopers, as well as for transporting food or ammunition of small weight.
I think a smaller aircraft than the Il-76 would be an excellent option for the VVS, but I would rather go with the Il-276 than the Il-112.
Of course, this is just my opinion and therefore not authoritative.

IL-276 is cancelled, it is not a viable project to manufacture 50 units, while the Il-112V is "frozen" due to problems, besides being an insufficient aircraft

I do not expect new transport aircraft for the VKS in many years, it is not a priority, proven Soviet models will continue to be manufactured

When the Special Military Operation is over we will see what they do in this matter, but the safest and most convenient is to manufacture An-74T-200 or similar new version

An-72 will still operate for a few years and not only in VKS, but also in the Border Guard and other bodies.
They are the newer aircraft compared to An-12 and An-26 and some have been in reserve to extend the life of the resource
Irreplaceable in operations in the Arctic
It will be easy to achieve you have facilities, personnel who can train new technicians and workers and also almost all the components of the plane

GarryB wrote:
Replacement of the old Antonovs makes sense, domestically and internationally. 10 ton capacity to 60 ton capacity is quite a jump in size and operational costs... with Il-112s and Il-114s entering widespread service for civil and military use the 10 ton capacity of the An-72 is a bit weak and on the light side... 20-35 tons over decent distances would be more flexible and useful without being as expensive as a bigger plane like an Il-76 based four engine design.

there in not any jump, payload is not the key in this

Do you know for wath are Russia using the An-22 ?
for move Mi-24 to repair plants, two Mi-24 of 8 tons each fligth, this is 16 t. , the 20% of the max payload

of cpurse payload is not the main reason , but the size (WIDTH and HEIGHT) of cargo bay
You cannot transport a Mi-24 of 8 tons in a An-12 or C-130, even in a Il-76

Simply Il-76 is the main transport doing the most of work in the most of bases like Belaya, Ukrainka, Yelizovo, Severomorsk, etc... and an airplane of An-72 can solve the most of the task for regional transport  currently do the An-26 and the An-12, that of course are aged and dont load much than the half of paypload, simply os still on use because the bigger size of cargo bay

The high cost of the C-130 makes the high cost but better performance of the A-400M seem worth it, but it is the absense of a decent An-12 replacement that stops it from being replaced with anything else other than the available A-400M.

Even the An-70 would be a better choice than the A-400M, but it is not an option either.

Il-214 and Tu-330s would be very useful replacements for An-72s and An-12s because of their jet speeds and increased internal capacities.

IL-214 does not exist (STVS was renamed Il-276), Tu-300 does not exist
The Russian aircraft industry will focus on replacing Western civil aircraft, it cannot be busy with unnecessary secondary military aircraft, let alone in a war situation.
When necessary, the factories will be used to replace Il-20, Il-22 Il-38 and other specialized versions.

I think a smaller aircraft than the Il-76 would be an excellent option for the VVS, but I would rather go with the Il-276 than the Il-112.
Of course, this is just my opinion and therefore not authoritative.

The Il-76 is still to big to be the small aircraft... so why go for the An-72 at 10 ton payload and x range when you can have Il-214 or Tu-330 with 20-35 ton payloads and much better range... or the same payload and even better range with the extra payload capacity being extra fuel to extend flight range.

And new Russian designs instead of old obsolete Ukrainian designs SOVIET designs

Again: it is not the payload is the ROLE in the airforce

Russia is using already Il-76 for all and An-26/72 for regional transport
An-12 is still used until end of useful life, it is a question of take advantage of each airframe to the end

Modernize 30-40 Il-76MD-M once you receive 40 Il-476, and can retire all An-12 still in operation

It is much cheaper to use planes you already have with their useful life left than to build a new plane for only 40 machines.
We will not see new transport planes while the Soviet legacy can be used

AN-72/74 is old design with old technologies.
Better to move on.
I am all for a new design which will use many components of the Sukhoi SSJ New: PD-8 engines, avionics, cockpit layout.
Should be a 10-12 tons cargo capacity and range of 4,000-5,000 km.

Krepost wrote:AN-72/74 is old design with old technologies.
Better to move on.
I am all for a new design which will use many components of the Sukhoi SSJ New: PD-8 engines, avionics, cockpit layout.
Should be a 10-12 tons cargo capacity and range of 4,000-5,000 km.

C-27/G-222 is an old design
C-235/295 is an old design
C-130 is an old design
Il-76 is an old design
You just don't need more to move small loads or multiple soldiers
Nobody needs to spend a few billion on it, you just need a plane to do the job.

There is a war in progress, resources are scarce and it is much more necessary to invest in drones and missiles

AMCXXL wrote:

Krepost wrote:AN-72/74 is old design with old technologies.
Better to move on.
I am all for a new design which will use many components of the Sukhoi SSJ New: PD-8 engines, avionics, cockpit layout.
Should be a 10-12 tons cargo capacity and range of 4,000-5,000 km.

C-27/G-222 is an old design
C-235/295 is an old design
C-130 is an old design
Il-76 is an old design
You just don't need more to move small loads or multiple soldiers
Nobody needs to spend a few billion on it, you just need a plane to do the job.

There is a war in progress, resources are scarce and it is much more necessary to invest in drones and missiles

Again, the Antonov aircrafts produced before 1991 have nothing to do with modern Ukraine.

And there are several of them that will remain in service with the Russian Air force for still many years (at least an-124 and An74).

Especially in the field of military transport aircrafts,  there are no new groundbreaking improvements for the airframe technologies,  unless they would like to replace as much as possible metal with composites... but probably that is not the best when you want to build "rugged" aircrafts capable to be operated from almost any airfield and condition.

As far as the airframe the improvement needed are more in the improved manufacturing techniques using digital designs and new machines.

The "only" "real technology improvements" for the final products are in the engine, avionics, navigation and internal systems areas.

Anyway,  as far as An74, the issue is if Russia has other aircrafts or is planning other aircrafts to operate specifically on artic condition. I know that they recently landed in Antartica with an Il-76,  but that is a much bigger aircraft.

As far an eventual restart of the production,  they would have to see if they can do what has been done for the il-76 and il-114.. digitalise the design and adapt to new engines/ avionics,  etc.

Also they could see if the partially built an74 are salvageable,  or if they have been destroyed.

GarryB wrote:When Nazy/US proxy Ukraine is defeated it makes more sense to let Antonov and Motor Sich and Ivchenko-Progress die... the investments needed to revive them would be too much and anything you create would not replace what has been lost. Building new factories and businesses makes sense but make them part of UAC and make them production rather than design centres... they can be expansions of Ilyusion and Tupolev and Klimov to make transport planes and engines for helicopters and ships etc etc.

This new territory is Russia... if any neutral territory wants to make that sort of stuff then what market will they sell to?
(...)
Antonov is dead, let it go. Expanding Myasishchev makes more sense... any Antonov engineers could join them to expand their potential.

Creating an entity of Antonov in UAC would create a hive of 5th columnists of the worst kind.

The former Antonov engineers and technicians (except those near retirement age) that were interested in leaving and going to Russia already did it since 2014, and after screening were probably involved in some UAC project.

Everything from the current Antonov must be officially terminated. Then Russia's UAC can legally take ownership of the design authority on the projects it is interested to.

The factories in Kiev and Kharkov, if still existing after the war will be completely separated from Antonov (as it was in soviet time... by the way, if i am not mistaken,  until the An72, kharkov aviation factory used to work more closely with the Tupolev bureau) and after reorganisation and training of employees eventually used for production of components for the Russian aviation industry (possibly later also for final assembly), and maybe also for UAV production.

The only current employees worth keeping are the old engineers and technicians near retirement age (that should be also more Russia friendly), to be kept as consultant/ trainers, in order to pass their experience.


An eventual brand new Antonov design bureau (as part of UAC) can be created from scratches in Moscow or Ulyanovsk and without Ukrainian engineers.

Russia should consider it the legitimate heir to the Soviet Antonov design bureau that "died" in 1991.

As far as motor Sich and Ivchenko-Progress, what remains of those can be added  to UEC and given to Klimov or Perm control.
Their facilities (including the blade plant in lugansk oblast) can be used to repair engines and produce components for Klimov, Saturn and Perm engines.

Garry's negativity about Antonov transport planes can only be compared with his obsession with MiG-35.
An-72 is a Soviet design and Russia has all documentation for it. As AMCXXL already noted, it would be ludicrous to spend billions in developing paper projects in current situation. If anything, they can modernize existing model, for much less money and call it M-72 so some people here don't have objections.

AMCXXL wrote:

Krepost wrote:AN-72/74 is old design with old technologies.
Better to move on.
I am all for a new design which will use many components of the Sukhoi SSJ New: PD-8 engines, avionics, cockpit layout.
Should be a 10-12 tons cargo capacity and range of 4,000-5,000 km.

C-27/G-222 is an old design
C-235/295 is an old design
C-130 is an old design
Il-76 is an old design
You just don't need more to move small loads or multiple soldiers
Nobody needs to spend a few billion on it, you just need a plane to do the job.

There is a war in progress, resources are scarce and it is much more necessary to invest in drones and missiles

I don't disagree.
But restarting AN-72/74 production, introducing new engines and switching other components (some of which are no longer produced) to Russian ones will also take time and cost a lot too.
There will have to be at least a partial redesign of the plane. Whatever factory it will be assembled in will have to be retooled, workers retrained, everything retested and recertified internally.
I don't know if it is worth doing it.
I am certain that Tupolev, MiG, Sukhoi have some designs on such a product (I recall I have seen various sketches). Perhaps it is better in the long term to start a new plane.
We will see. Time will tell.

IL-276 is cancelled, it is not a viable project to manufacture 50 units, while the Il-112V is "frozen" due to problems, besides being an insufficient aircraft

The Il-276 is essentially a modification of the Il-476, and the 50 aircraft they would built to replace the An-12 can be doubled because they could make another 50 and replace the An-72/74 and newer models they were going to introduce but are now dead projects.

Also the export potential of the Il-476 would create a market for export for Il-276s to replace C-130s and A-400Ms and An-12s in use world wide... it is bound to be rather cheaper to buy and to operate sharing most parts and equipment with the larger Il-476.

It was the reason the Il-276 was suggested in the first place.

I have not seen independent mention by anyone except that Blog that it is cancelled but even if that is true it was a suggestion to replace the Il-214 MTA they were already developing with India.

India pulled out but that didn't eliminate their requirement for a replacement.

I do not expect new transport aircraft for the VKS in many years, it is not a priority, proven Soviet models will continue to be manufactured

Throughout the rest of their military they are replacing old equipment with brand new stuff... manufacturing potential should not be wasted making old crap... they should be developing new stuff while current stuff gets upgrades to keep it relevant until the new stuff is ready for production.

When the Special Military Operation is over we will see what they do in this matter, but the safest and most convenient is to manufacture An-74T-200 or similar new version

Antonov is dead... why not revive Sikorsky if you want good old shit?

An-72 will still operate for a few years and not only in VKS, but also in the Border Guard and other bodies.

It could but why would they choose to do that?

They are the newer aircraft compared to An-12 and An-26 and some have been in reserve to extend the life of the resource
Irreplaceable in operations in the Arctic

Jet engines are good in very cold temperatures, but the Il-276 and Il-214 will be jets too.

It will be easy to achieve you have facilities, personnel who can train new technicians and workers and also almost all the components of the plane

If light planes are of no use or not important it would make more sense getting those technicians and workers to build more Il-476s... Russia could do with as many as they can make and the export market would allow even more to be made and used... and you could set up a few of those factories to make Il-276s at the same time...

of cpurse payload is not the main reason , but the size (WIDTH and HEIGHT) of cargo bay
You cannot transport a Mi-24 of 8 tons in a An-12 or C-130, even in a Il-76

The reason the Il-112 has reduced performance compared with its foreign counterparts is because it is fatter and has more internal space... these are the aircraft they want.

The Russian aircraft industry will focus on replacing Western civil aircraft, it cannot be busy with unnecessary secondary military aircraft, let alone in a war situation.

Replacing foreign aircraft is the goal and should not change.

Swapping one obsolete aircraft design to replace two is a solution, but building two domestic designs cancelled because of the lobbying power of the current enemy in the war makes more sense in the long run.

Modernize 30-40 Il-76MD-M once you receive 40 Il-476, and can retire all An-12 still in operation

So get rid of all cars and motorcycles and only use trucks and busses?

Not very efficient.

It is much cheaper to use planes you already have with their useful life left than to build a new plane for only 40 machines.
We will not see new transport planes while the Soviet legacy can be used

The planes they already have were mostly in storage because they were obviously not much use.

C-27/G-222 is an old design
C-235/295 is an old design
C-130 is an old design
Il-76 is an old design
You just don't need more to move small loads or multiple soldiers
Nobody needs to spend a few billion on it, you just need a plane to do the job.

Agree, but just making what has already been made does not allow new designers and engineers to do very much except confirm existing work... getting them to design new types and get them into production and then problem solve to fix the problems and get them working is vastly more valuable and the resulting aircraft types will most likely be very desirable outside of the west... most of the rest of the world probably don't want to pay for C-130Js and A-400Ms let alone C-17s, which are horrendously expensive.

There is a war in progress, resources are scarce and it is much more necessary to invest in drones and missiles

There is a war in progress, but designers of civilian aircraft have not been shifted to making artillery shells... if they have that would be a terrible waste of their skills.

An-12s and An-24/5/6/32s are going to start falling from the skies very soon and what does Russia have to replace them?

Even if the war ends tomorrow... they are not going to be making any planes in the New Russian territories any time soon... five years minimum to build factories, tool it out and recruit and train a work force... the Russian military can't wait five plus years for new transports.

As we have seen in other areas it makes sense to wait a little longer for the new thing than to just whack out a few more old things that are already obsolete.

Everything from the current Antonov must be officially terminated. Then Russia's UAC can legally take ownership of the design authority on the projects it is interested to.

No matter what Russia does and how much it follows the law it will still be Antonov and still be Ukrainian... I don't understand why you are do dead set on rescuing the dead?

Let it go.

[quote]The only current employees worth keeping are the old engineers and technicians near retirement age (that should be also more Russia friendly), to be kept as consultant/ trainers, in order to pass their experience.[/quoet]

Bah... not worth the risk... just train more Russians... those old guys will know the old ways, but new ways would be how they make them now...

Russia should consider it the legitimate heir to the Soviet Antonov design bureau that "died" in 1991

But why? Any engineers could be sent to Myasishchev or Ilyusion or Tupolev or Yakovlev and develop new civilian and military transports and airliners... Antonov can disappear like Polikarpov or Lavochkin...

As far as motor Sich and Ivchenko-Progress, what remains of those can be added to UEC and given to Klimov or Perm control.
Their facilities (including the blade plant in lugansk oblast) can be used to repair engines and produce components for Klimov, Saturn and Perm engines.

So the engine makers can disappear but not the aircraft maker?

Why is that?

Garry's negativity about Antonov transport planes can only be compared with his obsession with MiG-35.

For thirty years Antonov have been total and screwed Russia every which way they could... including ensuring any rival to Ukrainian transports get cancelled and buried... MiG-35 is a smaller lighter cheaper Su-35... what is not to like?

A better question would be to ask why so many in the west seem to hate the MiG?

An-72 is a Soviet design and Russia has all documentation for it. As AMCXXL already noted, it would be ludicrous to spend billions in developing paper projects in current situation. If anything, they can modernize existing model, for much less money and call it M-72 so some people here don't have objections.

If there is not enough money to spend on everything then it would make sense to drop the foreign types and just fund the domestic Russian aircraft.

The Il-276 is a modification of the Il-476... a scaled down version... it should be much easier to develop than a scaled up An-72 you guys are talking about, but then this thread is about the Il-112 which despite problems has not ended development.

Money spent on Russian designs is money earned on the export market... trying to sell modified Antonovs is just asking for shit from the west... maybe they will be nice and just let it go... what do you think?

This conflict is a separation of Russia with the west... a chance for a clean start... what look backwards?

GarryB wrote:

Everything from the current Antonov must be officially terminated. Then Russia's UAC can legally take ownership of the design authority on the projects it is interested to.

No matter what Russia does and how much it follows the law it will still be Antonov and still be Ukrainian... I don't understand why you are do dead set on rescuing the dead?

Let it go.

The only current employees worth keeping are the old engineers and technicians near retirement age (that should be also more Russia friendly), to be kept as consultant/ trainers, in order to pass their experience.[/quoet]

Bah... not worth the risk... just train more Russians... those old guys will know the old ways, but new ways would be how they make them now...

Russia should consider it the legitimate heir to the Soviet Antonov design bureau that "died" in 1991

But why? Any engineers could be sent to Myasishchev or Ilyusion or Tupolev or Yakovlev and develop new civilian and military transports and airliners... Antonov can disappear like Polikarpov or Lavochkin...

As far as motor Sich and Ivchenko-Progress, what remains of those can be added  to UEC and given to Klimov or Perm control.
Their facilities (including the blade plant in lugansk oblast) can be used to repair engines and produce components for Klimov, Saturn and Perm engines.

So the engine makers can disappear but not the aircraft maker?

Why is that?

Ivchenko progress design bureau unti 1994 was called  Zaporozhye Machine-Building Design Bureau (ZMKB) "Progress". It was renamed (with the name of the first head designer, who was born near zaporozhe in imperial Russia)
Furthermore, most of the famous engines made there carrythe name of the second design head, the Rostov born Lotarev..

Motor Sich as well was a name that was not used in soviet time (it was mainly called  Zaporozhye motor building plant or Motorostroitel).

Instead  Oleg Konstantinovich Antonov was a Russian engineer born in the Moscow region and his design bureau first started operating in Novosibirsk.

Anyway I said to do the same thing as well with the firm Antonov. The plants in Kiev and in kharkov (or what will remain of them after the war) need to be independent of Antonov.

Any tool or equipments for an-124/an72 still in good state
Could be transferred to Ulyanovsk and Samara

Same thing for Antonov airline, which is to be terminated.
...if there is any An-124 still in the territory of ukraine (but u doubt it) they can go to the Russia  military or to volga dnepr.


The firm can be bankrupted and terminated and its asset (including projects and patents acquired by UAC).

Then a brand new bureau carrying the Antonov name (if someone in Russia wants to continue carrying his legacy) can be created in Moscow.

Furthermore I am sorry for Polikarpov or Lavochkin, but the big difference is that there are still a lot of Antonov planes I  Russia's service, and at least the An-124 and the An74 will still stay on service more than a decade. So the situation is different. Furthermore, owning the design authority for those planes will probably ease the disputes on the airworthiness of volga dnepr planes.

Anyway, as far as the An74, it depends mainly on the equipment, tools, etc. It is a good plane and it has a dedicated niche. I like it also because it reminds me of Cheburaska.

As far as the il-112v, I believe someone is already working or at least thinking on a derivative of the TVRS-44 with a rear ramp (same thing that was done for the An-26 (rear ramp transport derivative of the An-24).

Eventually in the future a wider and larger An-8 replacement can be created (as soon as the 4000-5000hp  turboprop engine, currently in development,  is ready).

P.S. what does it have to do with the west?

An-124 and similar transport are for the Russian Air force. If there are no possibilities to sell civilian versions (as volga dnepr will probably not have for a while western customers) ,  than the cost of developing a brand new replacement is unjustified.  And Russian Air force does not need western approval.

As far as An74,  they can be used for artic roles and possibly sold to russias allies like Kazakhstan,  Iran or similar. Why do they need western approval?

Western countries are not going to buy Russian planes anyway, independently if the are called Antonov, Ilyushin, Sukhoy (SSJ 100), Yakovlev (MC-21), Tupolev  or Myasishchev

Any tool or equipments for an-124/an72 still in good state
Could be transferred to Ulyanovsk and Samara

There wont even be a slide rule they haven't sold or stolen or destroyed just so Russia cannot benefit from their acquisition.

Each of the pencils will be blunted and flexed to break the lead all the way through...

...if there is any An-124 still in the territory of ukraine (but u doubt it) they can go to the Russia  military or to volga dnepr.

The very possibility that such aircraft could go to Russia will mean they will be set fire to and destroyed rather than letting them fall into Russian hands.

Then a brand new bureau carrying the Antonov name (if someone in Russia wants to continue carrying his legacy) can be created in Moscow.

No value in continuing the name... otherwise the MiG OKB would have been called the Polikarpov OKB to continue his good name...

OKBs are named after the designers, not after designers they like or want to pretend they are continuing the legacy of.

Antonov created some amazing planes and that is not going to change, but there are lots of designers that created amazing things that are no longer used.

Furthermore I am sorry for Polikarpov or Lavochkin, but the big difference is that there are still a lot of Antonov planes I Russia's service, and at least the An-124 and the An74 will still stay on service more than a decade.

The point is that when the Polikarpov design Bureau collapsed, two of its designers set up their own OKB... called MiG.

By trying to pretend that Antonov still exists you are denying new designers their chance to make a name for themselves.

So the situation is different. Furthermore, owning the design authority for those planes will probably ease the disputes on the airworthiness of volga dnepr planes

Occupying the entire territory of the Ukraine would not settle anything, and rights and ownership will be contested forever...

Anyway, as far as the An74, it depends mainly on the equipment, tools, etc. It is a good plane and it has a dedicated niche. I like it also because it reminds me of Cheburaska.

The An-2 was an excellent plane, but that does not mean it needs to remain in service forever.

As far as the il-112v, I believe someone is already working or at least thinking on a derivative of the TVRS-44 with a rear ramp (same thing that was done for the An-26 (rear ramp transport derivative of the An-24).

So someone thinking about modifying a foreign design called a Let-410 or 610 makes more sense than completing the development of the Il-112V?

Which would be ready faster?

And if the Il-112V goes into production then surely it makes more sense to put a version with seats for civil passenger transport into development instead... sounds like the companies funding foreign plane designs have more money and political power and are using it to continue to destroy the Russian aviation industry.

Eventually in the future a wider and larger An-8 replacement can be created (as soon as the 4000-5000hp turboprop engine, currently in development, is ready).

Hang on... didn't you say that they shouldn't spend money and that upgraded An-74s and Il-476s can do everything they need?

GarryB wrote:

As far as the il-112v, I believe someone is already working or at least thinking on a derivative of the TVRS-44 with a rear ramp (same thing that was done for the An-26 (rear ramp transport derivative of the An-24).

So someone thinking about modifying a foreign design called a Let-410 or 610 makes more sense than completing the development of the Il-112V?

Which would be ready faster?

And if the Il-112V goes into production then surely it makes more sense to put a version with seats for civil passenger transport into development instead... sounds like the companies funding foreign plane designs have more money and political power and are using it to continue to destroy the Russian aviation industry.

Eventually in the future a wider and larger An-8 replacement can be created (as soon as the 4000-5000hp turboprop engine, currently in development, is ready).

Hang on... didn't you say that they shouldn't spend money and that upgraded An-74s and Il-476s can do everything  they need?

I do not remember i said that. Possibly someone
else. There is absolutely the need of one ( or even two aircrafts) in the range between 10 tons payload and 30-35 tons payload.

The latter could be covered by a Tu-330 made in Kazan, and for the first I initially (several years ago) thought about a stretched il-112v with the more powerful engines currently in development,  but now I am not anymore convinced about that aircraft.

About the il276 I do not know what is its status. I found its planned specs underwhelming, and if it is already like that on paper, before even a component being made,  it does not me feel confident about its future.


As far as the TVRS-44 it is a Russian project from Ural Civil aviation plant (even if it is a derivative based on the let-610 design) and it has already orders for many years (as someone already posted in the civil aviation thread). Aviakor in Samara is also building many components for this plane.
And it covers exactly the An-24 niche.

An il-112v passenger version does not make any sense.

Note, I share your doubts for the plans for building new let L410 in Russia,  but the TVRS-44 is a different matter.

P.S. as far as the name Antonov,  I am a bit a nostalgic.

I miss SIAI Marchetti and Caproni.

One of my dreams would be in the future to be able to collect funds to recreate one of them (officially they were both absorbed by Agusta so there is also a matter of IP).
(I dream also of total destruction of the car maker FIAT and of the resurrection of Lancia (and Alfa Romeo, currently just a shadow of its former self).

About Caproni, I would think a good start could be producing licensed copies of Beriev aircrafts , and later a company carrying the name of the Italian (later soviet) designer Bartini could be created as a joint venture between Italy and Russia to work together on new projects.

Of course nothing is possible with the current situation,  but maybe in the future...

There is no need for passenger version of Il-112 because there is the Il-114. Which uses the same engines and has a civilian airframe.

Frankly I think there is no need to waste too much money on large turboprops. I think continued production in the West of the A400M and C-130J is an anachronistic mistake for example. I also cannot fathom why Russia is not putting more emphasis on the Il-276 or some other similar aircraft like the Tu-330. They have the PS-90 and PD-14 so they could make an aircraft like this and replace the An-8. Did they freeze it until the PD-14M/PD-16 engines are available and Il-112 was complete? If they did this caused significant delays to the program. There is such a need for civilian and transport airplanes in Russia that I think they need to have more teams working on parallel designs. At this rate there is a high risk institutional knowledge will be lost if it has not already as the people who designed the previous generation aircraft in the Soviet Union all retire or just die out.

As far as An74, they can be used for artic roles and possibly sold to russias allies like Kazakhstan, Iran or similar. Why do they need western approval?

It has nothing at all to do with western approval, the west has made its position perfectly clear... they want Russians dead and their resources divided up between western states to help fix their broken economies... Russia should have a law that states western aligned countries cannot buy anything from Russia except in rubles and at triple the price... which of course will still be cheaper than western equivalents like the C-130 and A-400M and C-17.

Western countries are not going to buy Russian planes anyway, independently if the are called Antonov, Ilyushin, Sukhoy (SSJ 100), Yakovlev (MC-21), Tupolev or Myasishchev

Screw the west... let the west pay top dollar for western planes... let them bleed each others economies on that crap... the more western countries succumb to the corruption and buy F-35s the better too.

There is absolutely the need of one ( or even two aircrafts) in the range between 10 tons payload and 30-35 tons payload.

I totally agree, so dump the 10 ton payload capacity Ukrainian aircraft and build some Russian planes in the 20-35 ton payload range.

About the il276 I do not know what is its status. I found its planned specs underwhelming, and if it is already like that on paper, before even a component being made, it does not me feel confident about its future.

It doesn't need to be a record breaker... it just needs to do the job and be a Russian design that Russia can sell to the rest of the world in that niche role.

As far as the TVRS-44 it is a Russian project from Ural Civil aviation plant (even if it is a derivative based on the let-610 design) and it has already orders for many years (as someone already posted in the civil aviation thread). Aviakor in Samara is also building many components for this plane.
And it covers exactly the An-24 niche

So it is a modified foreign design from a smaller design from the 1970s... I would think the design bureaus of Russia could do better than just tinkering with existing types...

People complain they can't design new planes... well it is because they are not designing new planes or foreign planes beat them at the evaluation stage so they never get to put new planes through the entire development cycle... they can't keep recycling foreign designs forever... eventually they need to make their own designs and get them into service and troubleshoot any issues that pop up.

An il-112v passenger version does not make any sense.

Of course it does if it replaces the foreign types.

You claim making rear ramp door versions of the L-610 is easy enough, then leaving the rear ramp door and putting in seats should be pretty easy too...

Note, I share your doubts for the plans for building new let L410 in Russia, but the TVRS-44 is a different matter.

Russia needs to realise the west wants them dead and that keeping ties with the west is the last thing they should be doing... such ties will only be used against them further down the track.

The west needs to wake up and realise all their problems don't come from Putin or Russia and that all their problems come from their own governments and the US and EU as power structures and entities.

P.S. as far as the name Antonov, I am a bit a nostalgic.

I miss SIAI Marchetti and Caproni.

I completely understand that, Antonov made some amazing planes... I am sure some Canadian posters loved Avro, and of course plenty in Britain have aircraft companies they loved too... but those companies are all gone, it is time for new groups to make a new name for themselves.

One of my dreams would be in the future to be able to collect funds to recreate one of them (officially they were both absorbed by Agusta so there is also a matter of IP).
(I dream also of total destruction of the car maker FIAT and of the resurrection of Lancia (and Alfa Romeo, currently just a shadow of its former self).

I am sure you would get a lot of support for both of those ideas... but what happens if you revive one of those companies and the people with all the power in those new companies are the same people who ruined the companies that took over from them and they start making awful shit, because they could care less about the good name of the company.

Dreams are nice, but reality is never as nice as the dream...

About Caproni, I would think a good start could be producing licensed copies of Beriev aircrafts , and later a company carrying the name of the Italian (later soviet) designer Bartini could be created as a joint venture between Italy and Russia to work together on new projects.

Caproni had some wonderful exotic aircraft types, and Bartini was just as fantastically different... I am sure a research division of UAC could have a Bartini department... even just the idea of hovercraft skirts for aircraft for landing on any surface... hard or soft seems like a good idea to me... and wings on a hovercraft that would allow it to get airborne seem fascinating to me too.

With scramjet propulsion we are getting to the point where aircraft might start leaving the atmosphere and we haven't had a decent aircraft that can operate underwater yet...

Frankly I think there is no need to waste too much money on large turboprops.

The An-2, An-24/5/6, An-12, and An-22 were outstanding aircraft, but I agree that the An-12 and An-22 should be replaced by jets... the An-22 was more useful than the An-124 being cheaper to operate and less at the extreme in weights.

UAC is ready to continue work on the Il-112V transport aircraft

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4658060.html

From the article linked above

Bmpd wrote:As of February 14, 2023, there is no official information about the continuation of the assembly of the second and third prototypes of the Il-112V. In this regard, it can be stated that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has not yet decided whether the “one hundred and twelfth” project needs to be revived. Today's statement by the head of the UAC, Yuri Slyusar, fully confirms this assumption.

Meanwhile, we still do not have a replacement for the An-24 and An-26, which forces us to increasingly use heavy-duty vehicles instead of them - much more expensive both in terms of their maintenance and taking into account the amount of fuel they consume.

“The Il-2 planes are now needed by our Red Army like air, like bread,” Stalin pointed out on December 23, 1941, in a well-known telegram to the aircraft factory. If Joseph Vissarionovich were alive now, he would have every reason to draw up a telegram similar in content, replacing the Il-2 with the Il-112V in it.

Conclusion? It can only be one. The further fate of the Il-112V (to continue the project or close it by starting the development of a new light military-technical cooperation from scratch) must be decided as quickly as possible.

So actually the content of the article is quite different from the title.
I still believe that it was extremely important to work on it, because of a lot of mistakes that needed to be done and lessons relearnt on the projects of small military cargo, as unfortunately with Antonov in a foreign state and Ilyushin that for many years did not get money and could not maintain capable engineers, designers and technicians many competences were lost and one way to regain them is by experiencing failures and learning from them.

I am still not sure if it would be better to continue with this or maybe start anew with a different project, e.g. a military cargo derivative of the Ladoga aircraft, which could also benefit from the commonality in components and systems.

The Soviet Union had the same problem with helicopters... the Mi-2 was foreign built and they had nothing like Jet rangers and other small helicopter types.

Suggesting Russia does not need anything smaller than an Mi-8 is just being stupid... sure it can get the job done but as mentioned burning more fuel and increasing operating and maintenance costs so you can be pig headed.

The result was that Russia builds western helicopters like that Squirrel thing and other types too... and factories that produced aircraft built the Ansat essentially replacing design companies that would previously have developed such things... essentially the factory workers succeeding where the designers and engineers failed.

If Russia needs transports smaller than the Il-476 then many countries around the world will too... thinking you only need 50... well they likely thought they would only need 100 An-2s when they were built too.

Numbers are important and having smaller lighter cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate aircraft makes a lot of sense.