Future Transportort Aircaft

[echo 1]

Good afternoon everyone

I wanted to talk a little bit about the An-70 (please excuse me if this has already been posted). Pakistan has been using C-130 for as long as ever and they have been its primary transport work horse for many great years. Unfortunately a time will come where the great C-130 that has served Pakistan will come to an honorable end. So my question to everyone here is would the An-70 be a suitable replacement option for Pakistan?

I understand our very close relations to China and we may end up getting the Y-20 or some variant of the Y-20, I think with our close ties to Ukraine, maybe this amazing aircraft could also be considered.

According to some research I have done, one of which highlights the price of all transport aircraft throughout the world http://nationsdawnofanera.weebly.com/transport-aircraft.html. Please look through it as you see fit.

 

[echo 1]

Here is what I have found through this website:

China Y-20 ~$160 Million
United States C-130J ~$100 Million
Ukraine An-70 ~$72 Million

These are what I believe might be the primary contenders of the PAF Transportation Wing

 

[muhammadali233]

At Riat 2016 the Paf C130 pilots also showed quite some interest in the a-400m which is 200millon a pop
C-295 and C-235 are also serious contenders as c-235 is already in service.

 

[Muhammad Omar]

Wel we Currently have 4 IL-78 18 C-130's and 4 CN-235..

well Ukraine offered Production line of An-225 to China and 1 to Saudi Arabia An-32

An-178 Cost $70 Million and It can shift 18 tonnes over 1,000 km, or 10 tonnes over 4,000 km

while Y-20 cost $160 Million (according to you) and it can carry weight about 60 Tonnes over 4500 KM and 40 tonnes to 7800 Km

rather then buying more plane PAF should go for less planes with more range and loading capacity also we can use Y-20 as Fuel tankers in future

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The PAF will probably opt to replace unflyable C-130s with newer (not necessarily 'new-built') versions. The CN-235 will remain the core tactical lift (esp for STOL), if funds become available the PAF will just add to that force. The XTOL C-295 could be interesting. The IL-78 serve a unique heavy transport and tanker role, but they are major guzzlers. In that respect, a tanker configured Y-20 could be something of interest to the PAF. The only main alternative to that would be to split the tanker and heavy transport element, which is what Airbus is broadly marketing via the A330 MRTT and A-400. That is cost prohibitive, so in all likelihood the IL-78's successor will be the Y-20 if and when a tanker variant is available for export.

 

[Penguin]

Embrear KC 390?

 

[Oldman1]

KC-390 is awesome aircraft. But I would go for the AN-70 if its same or cheaper compared to the others.

 

[Penguin]

An-178

Kawasaki C-2

 

[echo 1]

WOW and here I thought no one was posting to my thread

Ukrainian aircraft is a good source, either An-178 or An-70 dont have to worry about sanctions, no lobbying from India (no offense to our Indian counter parts) issues etc. Parts will be readily accessible or maybe like mentioned above Ukraine lets us open an assembly line which would be the best for Pakistan and its economy (i my opinion).

Embrear KC 390?

My only issue with this aircraft is its power-plant, they are American. Which means that if the US were to impose sanctions on Pakistan, it would need to look else where for a new power-plant and a hole bunch of other garbage would follow.
My backing for this is I remember that Venezuela was trying to buy A-29 Super Tucano from Brazil a while back, but was not able to because the aircraft used US power-plant. And Venezuela was under sanctions from the US at the time.

 

[Incog_nito]

AN-70 is something which I like too. But I think PAF would prefer Chinese Y-20 and Chinese version of the Y-20 type aircraft with 2 Jet engines. As they will give a similarity in both aircraft.

For small aircraft, PAF might continue to use CN-235 and may order CN-295 along with some additional CN-235 too.

 

[Penguin]

AN-70 is something which I like too. But I think PAF would prefer Chinese Y-20 and Chinese version of the Y-20 type aircraft with 2 Jet engines. As they will give a similarity in both aircraft.

For small aircraft, PAF might continue to use CN-235 and may order CN-295 along with some additional CN-235 too.

"In June 2012, it was decided to carry out assembly of the An-70 at the KAPO factory in Kazan, Russia. The aircraft's wings, tail surfaces and engine nacelles would be built by Antonov in Kiev. Production of the first new fuselages in 16 years began in December 2012, and tests were completed by April 2014"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70

"The Ukrainian territory of Crimea was annexed by the Russian Federation on 18 March 2014."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

So, following hostile Ukrainian-Russian relations, what about AN-70 production?

As for AN-178, consider it is based on An-158 (AN-148-200)
"The An-148 is manufactured by the Ukrainian Kiev AVIANT plant (now "Antonov Serial Production Plant") and Russia's Voronezh Aircraft Production Association (VASO). Although numerous companies are involved in the project, at least 70% of the aircraft's hardware is made by Russian manufacturers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-148

So, likewise, what about AN-178 production?

WHO WOULD BUILD THESE PLANES?

Russia switched back to from AN-70 to IL-76MF and from AN-178 to UAC/HAL IL-214.

IL-76MF

IL-214/MTA

However:

"On 13 January 2016, Russian state media reported that Ilyushin had "frozen" the Russian-Indian project, and that Russia would assume full responsibility for detailed design and production of the aircraft."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAC/HAL_Il-214

"In April 2016,Indian company Reliance defense limited and Antonov entered into an agreement to construct an aircraft based on An 148/ An 158 for defense and commercial purposes"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-148

Lots of different Western equipment suppliers involved in KC-390.

 

[Incog_nito]

But I was right about PAF?

 

[Penguin]

World military transport market: acquisition costs (in $ million) and cargo capacity (in tons)

Roughly speaking, AN-178 is half the price of KC-390, but the latter carries almost double the cargo. KC-390 costs less than C-130J and has slight higher cargo capacity. Kawasaki C-2 gives comparable cargo capacity at less cost than A-400M, but both are more expensive and less capable than IL-76. Note absense of AN-70. MTA/IL-214 is a C-130H/J competitor: it would be more expensive than C-130H but cheaper than C-130J, all with same cargo capacity. As for C295, you can get two of these for the price of KC-390, but you would still end up with lesser total and individual aircraft lift capability.

But I was right about PAF?

In terms of payload, the Y-20 sits between the similar size IL-76 and larger C-17. It is larger and has greater cargo capacity than AN-70, A-400M and C-2.
http://www.janes.com/article/58397/china-s-y-20-transport-aircraft-may-enter-service-in-2016
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/china-will-mass-produce-over-1000-y-20.html

The price of the Y-20 has not been set because the development cost has not been assessed and it is too early to forecast how many Y-20s will be ordered
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013npc/2013-03/16/content_16312780.htm

In the case of Pakistan, which at some point will need to replace its P-3 Orion MPAs, an advantage of the Kawasaki C-2 can be that it was co-developed with the Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol aircraft. Although the two aircraft share no resemblance, they do share as many internal parts as possible (claimed to be up to 25% by weight) as an attempt to lower both their costs.

Kawasaki developed the C-X in parallel with the P-X, which it had also been selected to develop. As a cost saving measure, major airframe parts and system components were shared between the two aircraft.[9] They use the same basic wing structure, although it is installed at different sweep angle and dihedral on the two versions, with different high lift devices and powerplant attachments. Common components include the cockpit windows, outer wings, horizontal stabilizer, and other systems. Internal shared parts include the auxiliary power unit, cockpit panel, flight control system computer, anti-collision lights, and gear control unit. As of 2007, the total development cost for the two aircraft has been 345 billion yen (or roughly equal to $2.9 billion), which is low compared to similar programs. As an example: the development contract for the P-8 Poseidon alone was $3.89 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2

The P-X shares some components with the C-X, later designated as the Kawasaki C-2, another indigenously-developed aircraft to replace the Kawasaki C-1 and C-130H Hercules cargo aircraft. The P-X and C-X designs were originally independent, it was decided that having common components to both designs would be useful. The JDA mandated that the two aircraft share identical body components; common components include the cockpit windows, outer wings, horizontal stabilizer, and other systems. Internal shared parts include the auxiliary power unit, cockpit panel, flight control system computer, anti-collision lights, and gear control unit. Due to the different roles of the two aircraft, they remain distinctly separate. The sharing of development resources had allowed for a large reduction in overall development costs which, when including the C-2, were reported as being 345 billion Yen ($3 billion) in 2007

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1

 

[Incog_nito]

World military transport market: acquisition costs (in $ million) and cargo capacity (in tons)

Roughly speaking, AN-178 is half the price of KC-390, but the latter carries almost double the cargo. KC-390 costs less than C-130J and has slight higher cargo capacity. Kawasaki C-2 gives comparable cargo capacity at less cost than A-400M, but both are more expensive and less capable than IL-76. Note absense of AN-70. MTA/IL-214 is a C-130H/J competitor: it would be more expensive than C-130H but cheaper than C-130J, all with same cargo capacity. As for C295, you can get two of these for the price of KC-390, but you would still end up with lesser total and individual aircraft lift capability.

In terms of payload, the Y-20 sits between the similar size IL-76 and larger C-17. It is larger and has greater cargo capacity than AN-70, A-400M and C-2.
http://www.janes.com/article/58397/china-s-y-20-transport-aircraft-may-enter-service-in-2016
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/china-will-mass-produce-over-1000-y-20.html

The price of the Y-20 has not been set because the development cost has not been assessed and it is too early to forecast how many Y-20s will be ordered
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013npc/2013-03/16/content_16312780.htm

In the case of Pakistan, which at some point will need to replace its P-3 Orion MPAs, an advantage of the Kawasaki C-2 can be that it was co-developed with the Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol aircraft. Although the two aircraft share no resemblance, they do share as many internal parts as possible (claimed to be up to 25% by weight) as an attempt to lower both their costs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_C-2


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_P-1

PN can't afford 4 Jet Engine MPA. I think it would be ATR-72s and ATR-42s MPA versions or similar aircraft.

 

[Penguin]

PN can't afford 4 Jet Engine MPA. I think it would be ATR-72s and ATR-42s MPA versions or similar aircraft.

Or MPA version of C-295, now also available as AEW.

Anyway, the number of engines per se is irrelevant. PN has P-3 Orion with 4 engines, for example. And PAF has ZDK-03 four engine AEW, which is also available as Y-8Q/GX6 MPA

US P-8 and Japanese P-1

US P-8 and P-3

Japanse P-1 and P-3