Probably they will still want an An-26 replacement, because the aircrafts would be in different class (for payload, range and speed).
The point is that a heavier plane does not need to be fully loaded so an An-72 with 10 ton payload capacity can do the job of an An-26, and in fact it could probably do a better job in the sense that a 5 ton payload delivered in an An-72 could be taken rather further and rather faster than could be managed with an An-26.
This Il-212 they are talking about should be even better with perhaps the flight range to take 5 ton payloads over much bigger distances than the An-26 could manage.... perhaps 3,000km range flights with 5 ton payloads which actually might make it rather better than the lighter aircraft.
Remember the body of the Il-212 is the body of the Il-112 so it can carry bulkier loads the An-26 can't carry already but now it will carry much more much further and also much faster.
If they decide they do need a specialised An-26 replacement well they have the Il-112 design, so when engines that are powerful enough for a turboprop version are ready they can fill that gap then.
I would say over time when a suitable engine is ready the Il-112 is ready to go and an above wing mounted PD-8 powered Il-212 actually makes good sense... lots of excess power allowing 5 ton payloads to be delivered to shorter airstrips with problems with foreign object ingestion basically eliminated... military airfields can have all the vehicles needed to service engines mounted that high... the same vehicle could be used by the Navy and Emercom for their A-42s and Be-200s... which also have above wing mounted engines.
But this is for the military so I would think the Baikal would replace the An-2 for parachute training and light transport to rough airstrips and the Il-114 and Il-212 would fill the gap of the withdrawn An-26 and An-72s... they just need an An-12 replacement which I think could be a combination of Il-276 and Tu-330s now the Tu-214s are being produced in decent numbers.
It would be a similar difference between the il-76 and the An-22 (or an eventual il-106) and between the An-22/il106 and the An-124.
Except of the two a 12-15 ton payload Il-212 that keeps the Il-112 body means you can probably fit vehicles in it... the extra 6-10 ton capacity the new model has means a much wider range of more useful vehicles could be carried which the An-26 was not really much good for.
The distances in Russia also means heavier longer ranged aircraft can be used to take lighter payloads greater distances, and it upper wing mounted engines make it good for rough airstrips and good short takeoff operations.
I would think they could use the Il-212 for quite some time before they really noticed a lack of a smaller lighter aircraft... eventually a more powerful turboprop engine will become available... they are working on a few different types I think.
In the occasions when you just need the payload and range capabilities of a an-26 and the desired cargo fits inside of the cargo bay of the smaller airplane it would be cheaper to use an aircraft of the size of a an-26 (like a military cargo version of a TVRS-44 Ladoga or the iranian derivative of the an-140) than to use a il-212.
I would agree it would be cheaper but how often would that be exactly and is it enough to justify having an extra aircraft type in service?
They might find the Il-212 does everything the An-26 does but over more useful flight distances and to shorter airfields and it gets it there faster and is able to fly over bad weather instead of through it.
It might end up costing a little bit more on some trips but with other trips it might work out rather better where double the capacity allows two payloads to be carried in one aircraft, or allows one payload to be carried to the destination in one hop instead of multiple hops because it could take more fuel.
The extra engine power probably increases the safety margin on short air strips too.
This is especially true, since a military cargo version of the Ladoga with rear ramp could be ready before 2027.
But the Ladoga uses the TV7-117ST-02 that the Il-114 was going to be using in exactly the same passenger role for the Armed forces.
They don't need a replacement for that, it is just cargo for which they prefer a high wing layout for which the Il-112 was intended.
They inflated the fuselage to allow the loads they wanted to be able to carry, which probably include vehicles, which meant they needed increased engine power and the uprated engines to give it decent performance are not materialising so they are going for a PD-8 jet powered model.
They don't need a 5 ton cargo version if they have the An-26 passenger replacement in the Il-114.
As a comparison, the over the wing installation of the D-436 engine of the Be-200 is quite different from the one of the D-36 engine if the An-72/74
The engine placement on the amphibian aircraft was to use the wing as a barrier to the sea spray so it was actually over the fuselage more than the wing and probably didn't create any benefit in terms of thrust divergence. In comparison the engines on the Il-212 and An-72 will be placed on top of the wing so the trailing wing surfaces deflect the attached exhaust air flow when they are deployed to create downward thrust and a lifting force...
As far as the engine for the an-26 replacement, a 4000-5000 hp engine (like the planned PDV-4000) is not needed for such aircraft (but of course it would be needed and useful for other platforms).
The increased internal volume of the Il-112 means higher drag so increased thrust would be a benefit, plus the extra power allowing an increase in payload that could be payload or could be more fuel for better range options would certainly not hurt the design.
The il-112 needed much more power because it was considerably "fattier" than either airplane and than the An-26.
It was fatter so it could carry more bulky payloads that the other aircraft you mentioned cannot carry which is why the Il-112 is needed.
I suspect it is intended to carry some of the new vehicles they have been showing like that small four wheel vehicle carried by a Hip helicopter.
Such a payload would be useful for a plane able to operate from stretches of road or firm grass.
AFAIK Il-214 was a design of transport plane offered to cooperation with India.
It was also called the MTA and was supposed to replace the An-12, but they couldn't agree so the Russians decided to stop it and they were focussing on a scaled down Il-476 to do the job which would create commonality as it would be very compatible with the larger aircraft.
Does anyone know what is the difference between il-214 concept and il-212 press releases were talking about?
There is no relation, the Il-212 is an Il-112 with the two small 3,500hp propeller driven engines replaced by two PD-8 turbofans... which is a relatively massive increase in power.
The new aircraft will have the engines placed above and behind the wing like they are on the An-72 to allow the aircraft to operate from short rough airstrips with reduced risk of sucking in dirt and muck that could damage the engines on takeoff or landing.
I dont think Russian AF can wait next 15.20 years to replace aged An-26 fleet. Perhaps transport version of TVRS will be the only way?
The Il-114 is moving ahead just fine AFAIK and it is only the Il-112 cargo plane that has the problem, whose solution appears to have been sorted... it certainly wont take 10 years to beef up the fuel system and the hydraulics and fit a new wing with jet engines on it.
They might need to revise the undercarriage to allow operations at heavier weights but that is not a huge issue... it is all digital...
As for the TVRS-44 I am unsure of the future of an aircraft which is based on a foreign aircraft design, the Czech L-410, with an unproven engine like TV7-117ST. Might as well put the An-140T back into production at that point. And that is a disaster of a plane. This is not that far fetched since it was produced at Aviakor until not that long ago and is still a program in progress at Iran.
I suspect the civilian airlines will be buying the Ladoga simply because it is what they want in a locally made design that is sanction proof and they can't buy foreign aircraft anyway. They might look at the Il-114 but I suspect the Ladoga appears to be more of what they were using before made in Russia.
The il-214 was the previous designation of the il-276, at the time when it was proposed as a joint effort to India. It was supposed to share many parts with the il-76 and use either PS90 or PD-14M engines, but its proposed performance on the paper (payload and range) were very lacklustre. Much worse than the KC-390 (and to the point that it would be almost better to ask the Chineses to help resetting a production of a modernise An-12 (since they still produce it under another name)
From an Indian perspective, perhaps, but from a Russian perspective it makes sense for their An-12 replacement to be more like their Il-476 than to be like the old Soviet An-12.
Very interesting link, I wrote many times about a military cargo version of the TVRS-44 with rear ramp, considering it an almost natural derivative, like the An-26 from the An-24, nice to see that it was already officially proposed.
Who is going to fund it though... the Russian military have the Il-112 and they are putting jet engines on it to make it an Il-212... they are hardly going to ALSO fund a modification of Ladoga as well.
As far as the TV7-117 engine, they need to fix it anyway also for the il-114 passenger aircraft, which is really needed.
There is nothing wrong with the TV7-117 engines... if there was... well guess what... the Ladoga uses the same engine... the difference is that the Ladoga and Il-114 use the standard engine which works fine, rather than the uprated version the Il-112 was trying to use because of its enlarged shape to allow vehicles to be carried.
Even if you put a rear ramp on a Ladoga the fuselage body is not big enough to take the vehicles they clearly want to carry for which the enlarged Il-112 was designed.
If you want to enlarge the body then you might as well wait for the Il-212.
Furthermore, since in the TVRS-44 it will be only needed in the derated version (2400 for the passenger aircraft or 2600 hp for the military transport derivative), it should not be a problem.
It is a problem because even with a ramp it wont fit the vehicles they want to carry which was the whole reason behind the Il-112 in the first place.