Ladoga Changes Course: Why a Civil Aircraft is Being Converted into a Military Transporter

61 999 103
Ladoga Changes Course: Why a Civil Aircraft is Being Converted into a Military Transporter
Photo: Press service of JSC UZGA


On May 21, 1969, the An-26 prototype—a passenger An-24 modified to serve military requirements as a ramp transport aircraft—took its maiden flight in Kyiv. On May 21, 2026, exactly 57 years later, industry media reported the transfer of the TVRS-44 Ladoga project from the civilian jurisdiction of the Ministry of Industry and Trade and UZGA to the Ministry of Defense. The coincidence, of course, is coincidental. But the story itself is not: in the niche of regional turboprop aircraft in Russia, the military is taking the aircraft from civilian use for the second time in half a century, and this seems to be the key story, not just a date on the calendar.



An-24, An-24T, An-26: How a regional passenger jet becomes a transport aircraft


The An-24 entered production in 1959 as a pure passenger high-wing monoplane for local flights, with a pressurized cabin, a three-person crew, and a wing raised above the fuselage just enough to allow for landings on the ground. The military immediately took notice. In 1965, the An-24T was released: the passenger cabin was removed, a plywood floor was laid, a cargo hatch was installed in the lower tail, and a side door was installed on the left. The Military Transport Aviation (VTA) deemed this solution unsatisfactory: long objects couldn't fit through the narrow lower hatch, and parachute platforms couldn't be dropped from this configuration. This interim solution proved unsatisfactory.


On March 12, 1968, the Ministry of Aviation Industry and the Air Force jointly decided to develop a full-fledged military transport aircraft based on the An-24. The Antonov Design Bureau completely redesigned the tail to accommodate a unique sliding ramp that sealed the cargo opening in flight, lowered for equipment entry, and slid under the fuselage for loading from the truck bed and for airdrops. A navigation blister with an NKPB-7 sight for precise cargo release was added to the left nose. The AI-24 engines were replaced with uprated AI-24VT engines: 2820 hp instead of 2550. A RU-19A-300 turbojet booster was added to the right engine nacelle. The wing and landing gear were reinforced, and high-profile tires were installed for muddy conditions. Takeoff weight increased from 21 to 24 tons.


The result was a machine that the military took seriously. The An-26 prototype took off on May 21, 1969, and production began at the Kyiv Aircraft Factory that same year, continuing until 1986 with 1398 units produced. It had a payload capacity of 5,5 tons, a takeoff run from ground distance of 780–870 meters, and a crew of 5–6. For half a century, military transport and civilian carriers relied on this very machine, and continue to do so today: others simply weren't built in sufficient numbers.

TVRS-44 "Ladoga": civil design and motor risk


History The development of a new regional aircraft began without any military context. In December 2018, UZGA was looking at the Czechoslovakian Let L-610, the rights to which were by then owned by a Russian company. The logic was economical: take an existing turboprop aircraft, once developed into a prototype, and adapt it for specific missions. In September 2019, the Ministry of Industry and Trade rejected this approach: the project was to be a new aircraft, using only the L-610's scientific and technical background and geometry.


Aerodynamic testing of the TVRS-44 Ladoga engine. Photo by TsAGI.

In September 2020, the technical specifications were approved. On December 25 of that year, the Ministry of Industry and Trade signed a state contract with UZGA for the R&D project, codenamed "TVRS." The project received its proper name, "Ladoga," in early 2022. Detailed design work began in 2021.

What emerged from the drawings was a machine with a clear niche. A 44-seat twin-engine high-wing aircraft, powered by two Russian-made TV7-117ST-02 aircraft. According to the design specifications, the cruising speed was 460–480 km/h, the range with a full passenger load was approximately 2200 km, and the maximum takeoff weight was approximately 17,5 tons. The aircraft was initially designed for operations from unpaved and snow-covered runways, for low temperatures and poor infrastructure, and for the same network of small airfields where the An-24 and An-26 operate today. According to the aviation industry development program through 2030, the Ladoga was to occupy a position between the nine-seat LMS-901 Baikal and the 64-seat Il-114-300, with the final figure being 105 aircraft by 2030, according to the revised version.

The engine program in this story is a separate issue. The TV7-117ST-02 for the Ladoga is a derivative of the basic TV7-117ST-01, which powers the Il-114-300, with a takeoff power deliberately reduced to 2400 hp. This power reduction was necessary: ​​a boosted military version of the same family powered the Il-112V, the only flying example of which crashed near Kubinka in August 2021. After that accident, all aircraft with TV7-117 engines were suspended for a long period of modification. By the spring of 2026, the situation had stabilized: in January, key restrictions were lifted on the modified TV7-117ST-01, and in April, the designated service life of the main components was extended from 348 to 777 takeoff and landing cycles. UEC-Klimov's next goal is 2000 cycles. The ST-02 version is scheduled to receive type certification in 2026. On paper, the deadlines are in order, but the pace is everything: whether the Ladoga will be able to fly on scheduled routes at all depends on how quickly its service life increases from 777 cycles to a commercially acceptable several thousand.

The cooperation was spread across several sites: the fuselage of the first prototype was built by Aviakor in Samara, individual components by the Smolensk Aircraft Plant, and final assembly by the new UZGA building in Aramil near Yekaterinburg. By the spring of 2026, jig assembly of the first flying prototype was completed, the first flight is scheduled for mid-2026, and the aircraft type certificate is scheduled for 2029. The deadlines have shifted from the original: deliveries were planned for 2025.

TVRS-44T and the shadow of the Il-112V


In parallel with the passenger aircraft, UZGA was developing the TVRS-44T project, a military transport modification tailored to the requirements of the Ministry of Defense. Structurally, this is a different aircraft. The fuselage has been lengthened by 4 meters, and the tail features a full-size ramp with a sliding or lowering door similar to the An-26. Maximum takeoff weight has increased from 17,5 to 18,5 tons. The cargo compartment is designed to accommodate long items, military pallets, and small wheeled vehicles; tiers of stretchers are available for evacuating the wounded; and the aircraft can be converted from a cargo carrier to a troop carrier using folding seats along the sides. Parachute landing from the ramp is a mandatory requirement.

The TVRS-44T is not the first attempt to replace the An-26. Since the early 2010s, Ilyushin Aviation Company had been developing the Il-112V, a light military transport aircraft with a 5-ton payload capacity and the same TV7-117ST turboprop engines, in parallel. The contract with the Ministry of Defense was signed in 2014, and the prototype's first flight took place on March 30, 2019, with the second on March 30, 2021, after two years of modifications, including weight reduction. On August 17, 2021, the sole flying prototype crashed near Kubinka. According to the investigation and publications in industry publications (Aviation Week, Aviation Safety Network), the most likely cause was a surge in the right engine, which escalated into a nacelle fire; high temperatures led to the destruction of the control rods in the wing and a loss of control.


The entire crew—Nikolai Kuimov, Dmitry Komarov, and Nikolai Khludeyev—was killed. By 2026, the Il-112V turboprop was deemed unviable, the program was closed, and it was redesigned as the Il-212, a jet-powered aircraft with two PD-8 turboprops mounted above the wing, following the An-72 design. The Il-212's maiden flight is scheduled for late 2026.

By the time the Ladoga was on the verge of its first flight, one program in the An-26 replacement niche had already been closed due to a crash, and a second (the Il-212) had yet to take off and had changed its powerplant type. The TVRS-44T remains the only viable turboprop aircraft in this niche that has even reached jig assembly.

The parallel with 1968 is almost mirror-image. The base is a passenger high-wing aircraft for regional use. The military version requires a longer fuselage, a modified tail for a ramp, structural reinforcement for the increased takeoff weight, and adaptation for airborne operations. There is one difference, and it's crucial. Antonov received the military order after the disastrous An-24T, and the design bureau developed the An-26 as a separate project. At UZGA, the civil and military branches ran in parallel until, according to reports from Expert, Profile, and Monocle on May 21, 2026, the military became the primary one. The civil configuration has effectively been suspended, and the accumulated resources will be reoriented primarily toward military transport and cargo versions, as a replacement for the An-26 in the armed forces. In comments to industry media, UZGA stated that there is no talk of a complete shutdown; work on the first flight in 2026 is ongoing, and the final design is still being finalized.

No direct reasons for the reversal are given in open sources, but the situation is quite clear. An-26 production ended 40 years ago, most of the remaining aircraft are over 40 years old, and extending their service life to 60 years is a direct admission that a replacement will not be provided on time. As everyone understands, there is no talk of resuming production, as was the case with the Tu-160. The Il-112V turboprop is canceled, and the Il-212 doesn't yet exist in metal. Against this backdrop, the TVRS-44T is the only program that can be accelerated for military orders, building on existing technology.

What does this mean for the regions?


Regional carriers have reoriented themselves without waiting for the May deadlines. NewsIn 2025, Far Eastern airline Aurora, which had a letter of intent for the Ladoga aircraft, signed a separate lease agreement with GTLK for three Il-114-300 aircraft, with delivery scheduled for 2027. KrasAvia, which had previously planned to be the launch operator of the TVRS-44 and announced the acquisition of up to 20 aircraft by 2030, is now tied to a much longer and less certain timeframe.

Irkutsk's Angara was skeptical of the program from the very beginning. At the Federation Council hearings on regional issues aviation The company's first deputy general director, Sergei Zorin, said:

"We're currently operating in a market where there are no alternatives to the An-24 and An-26. Therefore, we can say that there's currently no replacement for the An-24 or An-26."

Angara also has a sober attitude towards official write-off forecasts:

"Reports from the State Research Institute of Civil Aviation indicated that a quarter of these aircraft would be decommissioned by 2030. In reality, we believe the fleet's retirement will occur much earlier, namely in 2028."

And separately about the economy of the new car:

"The cost of the TVRS-44 is 2 billion rubles. It's comparable to the cost of short- and medium-range jets, which are three to four times larger in capacity."

The thesis is simple: 44 seats in the regional market at this price do not pay for themselves.

It's worth noting that we're talking about aircraft that were supposed to operate in the country's outback, serving as regional passenger airliners. This niche is practically disappearing today precisely because there are no aircraft for it.

The government's response is to extend the service life of Soviet aircraft. According to industry publications, the State Research Institute of Civil Aviation has launched certification work to increase the An-26's designated service life from 50 to 60 years and the overhaul period from 20 to 26 flight hours. Completion of the work is scheduled for January 26, 2028. The Soviet turboprop passenger airliner has officially been given another ten years to allow time for factories to begin producing Ladoga and Il-114-300 aircraft.

But this immediately raises the question: what if the factories don't start delivering the Ladoga and Il-114-300? The failure of the civil aircraft production program has already been publicly announced and acknowledged; the situation is not looking good, and extending the service life of forty-year-old aircraft is a highly controversial move. An extension certificate would be a good thing, if it weren't for the impact on passengers. More precisely, the threat to life during operation of imported aircraft, which includes all Antonov aircraft, can already be addressed.

The bottom line: the military order will bring the Ladoga into production. This scenario was already played out in 1968 with the An-26, and it appears to be repeating itself now. Only this time, the plan is for 105 aircraft by 2030, not 1398, as with Antonov's predecessor. And most importantly, regarding the passenger configuration: whether there will be room in this series for the purely civilian Ladoga, which is used by Aurora, KrasAvia, and for which Zorin of Angara is calculating the economics, is not yet publicly available.

However, I would very much like to clarify the situation, since the solution to the problems of military transport aviation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in terms of small-tonnage aircraft can only be welcomed, but the situation with passenger fleet is becoming more and more unpleasant.
103 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 30
    24 May 2026 04: 53
    It's very sad to watch the efforts of the Russian aviation industry!😪😪😪
    1. + 33
      24 May 2026 07: 10
      There are two options here: either outright sabotage or the sheer stupidity of the administrative apparatus. But what does all this mean to the common people?
      1. + 10
        24 May 2026 07: 29
        They can't make new developments, so they upgrade old aircraft. Those same Il-76s are probably in high demand in both military transport aviation and the civilian sector.
        1. +9
          24 May 2026 08: 07
          I think they'll find a thousand reasons for this too. As the saying goes: sometimes the shirt is too long, sometimes the dick is too short...
        2. + 22
          24 May 2026 09: 08
          So they can’t even modernize it. Look at the AN-2, they modernized it, but they didn’t modernize it!
          1. +3
            24 May 2026 11: 19
            What's the point? You can't fly a turboprop through the landings. So, the pollination niche is out. And making it a purely passenger aircraft probably wouldn't be profitable.
            1. 0
              24 May 2026 15: 09
              Flights to remote areas, especially the Far North, and as before, air ambulances, forest protection
              1. -5
                24 May 2026 15: 49
                Helicopters can handle all of this, especially now that the offshore Mi-8 has arrived. The An-2 needs a new engine, and the airframe isn't getting any younger. And then there's the airfield network. That's just my opinion, of course; maybe I'm missing something.
                1. -1
                  24 May 2026 15: 54
                  I agree about the helicopters, but here's the thing
                  Unique flight characteristics: The legendary "maize" can land on unprepared, unpaved, and snow-covered sites, and also has an unrivaled ability to safely glide in the event of engine failure. Inexpensive and simple: The aircraft is extremely low-maintenance and inexpensive to operate, although its original ASH-62IR piston engine is obsolete. A no-choice option for the North: Given the vast distances and harsh climate, light aviation remains the only link for many isolated villages.
                  1. 0
                    24 May 2026 16: 05
                    Those engines aren't manufactured. And I doubt it's unprepared sites. You could hit a stump or a hole, like hell. And the aviation fuel consumption there is simply outrageous. You'll be left without pants. As for planning, I agree. From a kilometer away, you can lose about ten, which, at one time, became a corrupt component of the crew's work.
                    1. +4
                      24 May 2026 17: 01
                      A helicopter flight costs four times as much. A helicopter covers half the distance. A helicopter is good for places where there's no landing surface at all, like a drilling platform. But a plane... if the local reindeer herders have covered three hundred meters, that's enough.
                    2. 0
                      24 May 2026 17: 05
                      A new engine won't help the An-2. Current flight safety requirements require a twin-engine aircraft for more than nine passengers.
                      1. -1
                        30 May 2026 21: 14
                        The Ladoga, An-24, An-26, and Il-114 are aircraft of a completely different class compared to the An-2, more demanding in terms of runway performance, and their economics are different.
                      2. -1
                        30 May 2026 21: 20
                        The An-2 does not meet safety requirements. An aircraft carrying more than nine passengers must have two engines.
                      3. 0
                        30 May 2026 22: 07
                        What I mean is that these planes have ~50 or more passengers, which may be excessive.
                  2. -3
                    25 May 2026 21: 57
                    The AN-2 has an unrivaled ability to safely glide in the event of engine failure.
                    Airplanes have a parameter called "lift-to-drag ratio." This parameter determines the aircraft's ability to glide. For the An-2, it's 10, meaning that from an altitude of 1 km, an An-2 without an engine will fly 10 km. This isn't a particularly impressive figure. For comparison, the lift-to-drag ratio of the Su-27 is 11,6, the Tu-204 is 18, and the Tu-160 is 19.
                    1. DO
                      0
                      26 May 2026 01: 45
                      qwertyui_1, however, the Tu-160 cannot take off or land on any of the rural runways used by the An-2 (including forest clearings, packed snow, and grassy surfaces). An An-2 with an inoperative engine does not stall but glides to the ground. The An-2's landing range is 215 m.
                      If all four engines of a Tu-160 fail far from its regular airfield (it runs out of fuel), the crew can only be saved by ejecting, since the landing speed of a Tu-160 is 260–300 km/h, and the runway requirement is a length of more than 1200–1400 m, and a particularly strong, smooth concrete surface.
                      1. 0
                        26 May 2026 19: 57
                        I wasn't writing about an airplane's landing capabilities on a particular runway, but rather about its glide capabilities. Therefore, glide capabilities and landing capabilities shouldn't be confused, as they are two different things.
                2. +1
                  24 May 2026 17: 28
                  Quote: helilelik
                  Helicopters can handle all of this, especially now that the offshore Mi-8 has arrived.

                  A Mi-8 flight hour will always be three times more expensive than its single-engine An-2 counterpart. That's why there are so many light aircraft in the Antipodes.
                  1. 0
                    24 May 2026 18: 36
                    Yes, but the service life of a turboshaft engine is incomparable to a piston engine. The engine itself weighs almost a ton. And the payload capacity of the An-2 and Mi-8 is also different. The number of passengers... I doubt three crop dusters would cost less than one eight. You'd need about a dozen light Cessnas. And that, on top of everything else, would mean crew salaries.
                3. +2
                  24 May 2026 17: 56
                  A helicopter is generally more complex than an airplane, more expensive in terms of purchase, fuel consumption, maintenance, and flight hour cost. Our main helicopter, the Mi-8, is redundant for most of the tasks it performs.
                  1. 0
                    25 May 2026 03: 18
                    Quote: faiver
                    Our main helicopter, the Mi-8, is redundant in most of the tasks it performs.

                    Agreed! But suggest a different "horse"! Better too much than not enough!
        3. 0
          24 May 2026 12: 57
          What's wrong with the Il-76?
          They're working on this in Ulyanovsk.
        4. +1
          24 May 2026 18: 44
          Well, that's what they do with the 76s, but that's a large aircraft with a payload capacity of up to 60 tons. A completely different class. And in the light-duty aircraft class, corruption seems to reign supreme. What kind of UZGA is this, a former aircraft repair plant? There are more than enough doubts about its competence. And yet it takes on engines and aircraft lines. Horrible! This is considering we're having a disaster with design engineers.
      2. + 16
        24 May 2026 08: 30
        Quote: marchcat
        There are two options here: either outright sabotage or the sheer stupidity of the management apparatus.

        In my opinion, it's a bit of both. But I'd also add a lack of engineering personnel. Education reform is having an impact.
        1. 0
          26 May 2026 13: 13
          /...The education reform is making its presence felt.../ Why do you call deliberate collapse "reform"?
          1. +1
            26 May 2026 13: 43
            Quote: eleronn
            /...The education reform is making its presence felt.../ Why do you call deliberate collapse "reform"?

            Because the word has become a household word. In fact, reform literally means improvement.
            So it turns out that what's happened to education can't really be called an improvement. That's why the cursed word "reform" is so troubling. hi
      3. 0
        24 May 2026 09: 06
        And it’s not easy for a complex people to deal with all this.
      4. +2
        24 May 2026 11: 34
        As one political scientist said about our mentality: what is not necessary will never be done, what is necessary for survival will be done at any cost.
        It seems that cars, planes, roads, etc. are not necessary for us, if we can’t even do them under capitalism.
      5. +2
        24 May 2026 13: 58
        Quote: marchcat
        There are two options here: either outright sabotage or the sheer stupidity of the administrative apparatus. But what does all this mean to the common people?
        There's a third option: Bobik died. But his corpse is being stirred up by those who need to report on the programs.
      6. +6
        24 May 2026 17: 44
        There are several reasons, one of them being Manturov, who decided that UZGA would make all the planes and sent them money, and then sent them more. And then some. Ultimately, the money was spent, and that's all.
        1. +3
          25 May 2026 17: 25
          Yes, a man who ran a private business, bankrupting and reselling manufacturing plants to please the West, was put in charge of the Ministry of Industry and Trade's development. Curtain call! And now he's been promoted again. So that's how it is.
          1. +2
            25 May 2026 18: 17
            It would be understandable if he was from the Ozero cooperative or the son of an important KGB boss, but why an unknown saboteur is constantly promoted is beyond comprehension.
    2. 0
      24 May 2026 23: 37
      Our auto industry is the same...
      Respect to the author, a good article, everything is to the point and specific!
  2. + 29
    24 May 2026 05: 33
    I wonder if there's any industry where Vladimir Vladimirovich's "effective managers" haven't screwed themselves over yet? Well, other than embezzling money with zero results. Well, self-esteem there is certainly sky-high, which is why the results are so good.
    1. + 34
      24 May 2026 05: 42
      The guarantor explained to you that these are such valuable specialists that they are simply forced to pay them millions a month to prevent them from being lured away by the West!
      1. + 41
        24 May 2026 07: 14
        Quote: paul3390
        They are simply forced to pay them millions a month so that they are not lured away by the West!
        It would be better if the West lured them away. laughing
      2. + 10
        24 May 2026 08: 09
        ...or maybe we should just let them poach us? And they'll do the same thing there, right?
        and we will rejoice. Yes
        1. + 30
          24 May 2026 10: 00
          Quote: Nexcom
          Or maybe we should just let them poach us? And they'll do the same thing there, right?

          There are no fools there. Note that even those who fled there with huge sums of money don't do much. The most they can do is open a restaurant. This is a clear sign that their money was earned solely through their closeness to power and the accompanying machinations. Businessmen of the 90s are incapable of creation.
          1. +8
            24 May 2026 10: 43
            Golden words! They've learned to steal. And almost no one has yet...
            1. +5
              24 May 2026 16: 25
              "Yes, but why?" (C)
              1. +1
                24 May 2026 16: 29
                ..well, damn, as if I ever said such words... belay

                and these guys - they've already said a lot of things with their tongues - and there are no consequences...
          2. +1
            24 May 2026 14: 01
            Quote: qqqq
            Please note that everyone who fled there, even with very large sums of money, does not do anything special.
            Durov continues to do what he did.
          3. 0
            24 May 2026 17: 46
            Tinkov is a surprising exception; his business is growing there. In Mexico, admittedly, it's growing. The rest are only opening stores.
      3. + 10
        24 May 2026 11: 37
        The Tsar forgot to add: and they cannot be forced to work for these millions, otherwise the West will also lure them away.
        1. +2
          24 May 2026 16: 26
          You can't force them to work because the results are obvious. It's better not to let these people work at all.
      4. +3
        24 May 2026 15: 23
        The West doesn't need such specialists for free.
  3. + 13
    24 May 2026 05: 34
    The author is optimistic. "The bottom line: a military order will bring the Ladoga into production. This scenario was already played out in 1968 with the An-26, and now, apparently, it's repeating itself. Only this time, the plan is for 105 aircraft by 2030." For some reason, he believes in a "military order" with our effective managers. And comparing 1968 with 2026 is a poor "comparison."
  4. + 12
    24 May 2026 07: 30
    I've repeatedly noted that until the Ministry of Aviation Industry is recreated, there's no point. It should be headed by an engineer with a specialized education and personally responsible for aircraft design and production. Another issue is finding designers like Antonov, Ilyushin, Tupolev, and Yakovlev who are passionate about aviation and know how to build airplanes, not just siphon off money. This is a proven organizational and technical scheme for our country. The other question is, what's the big deal? The blueprints exist, the repair and manufacturing technologies are well-established. Why not modernize the AN-26 with new engines and equipment, then release it and rename it the ANT, thus beginning its Russian history? The TVRS-44T is as conservative a design as the AN-26, as are other similar aircraft in the world. It's like a bicycle, where nothing new can be invented. hi
    1. +2
      24 May 2026 16: 50
      The issue is steadfast adherence to the philosophy of progress. That is, trying to replicate what they're doing in the West, no matter what, no matter the futility and predictable failure of these projects. We'll catch up and surpass the slogan, even if no one wants it.
      The USSR had a magnificent regional jet, the Il-14. It was inexpensive and met all requirements. But it didn't keep up with the changing fashion trends. People wanted something like the Wild West, with turbines, of course. The economically unsuccessful An-28, An-38, and even the foreign-made L-410 and L-610 appeared.
      The Il-14 had its drawbacks. Its engine, the practically military-grade ASh-82T, wasn't particularly durable; liquid-cooled engines should have been used. It wasn't a high-wing aircraft, and its engines were mounted low to the ground.
      But it was precisely this direction that should have been developed for regional aviation, with cheap piston engines.
  5. Eug
    +5
    24 May 2026 07: 35
    As far as I understand, the Ladoga has narrow main landing gear "growing" from the fuselage, while the An-26's are located in the engine nacelles, meaning they are spaced much wider. I'm afraid this wouldn't interfere with ground operations. It would be interesting to compare the volume and dimensions of the cargo compartments.
    1. +7
      24 May 2026 08: 03
      The 26th is an all-terrain vehicle. Taking off from Bodaibo was something else! Dirty mud mixed with wet snow, and it all flew into the engines and everything. Fountains and streams of mud from under the tires... But it took off. Up to its ears in dirty mud, but it took off.

      Indeed, how will it be near Ladoga with such conditions? It’s not like taking off from a concrete road...
      1. +1
        25 May 2026 03: 55
        Quote: Nexcom
        Indeed, how will it be near Ladoga with such conditions? It’s not like taking off from a concrete road...

        Well, it'll be... as usual! It'll turn out that not all the GDP was concreted! What a mess!
    2. +1
      24 May 2026 08: 13
      ..and in the An24RT they actually crammed in a mini-jet auxiliary engine for takeoff in difficult conditions... purely for takeoff... and which was not even visible from the outside.
    3. -4
      24 May 2026 10: 42
      Quote: Eug
      The Ladoga, as far as I understand, has narrow main landing gear that grows out of the fuselage, while the An-26 has them located in the engine nacelles.
      But they're smaller in size and, consequently, lighter. As for unpaved airfields, there are almost none left now.
      1. +8
        24 May 2026 12: 16
        As for unpaved airfields, there are almost none left now.
        - Father, Russia includes not only the Moscow and Leningrad regions, come to us in Kolyma and we will show you unpaved airfields... bully
      2. -1
        25 May 2026 03: 57
        Quote: Xenon
        As for unpaved airfields, there are almost none left now.

        Ha-ha-ha, where did such an "optimist" come from?
        1. +2
          25 May 2026 05: 37
          Quote: Traveler 63
          Ha-ha-ha, where did such an "optimist" come from?
          Single-celled organisms won't understand this anyway. wink
    4. 0
      24 May 2026 12: 22
      The Ladoga is a conversion of the Czech L-410, from the same late 60s era as the An-26. The Czech "Cheburashka" performed admirably on unpaved airfields, so if the chassis load calculations were correct, everything will be fine. However, the cargo compartment of the transport Ladoga will be slightly smaller in terms of width and height...
  6. +9
    24 May 2026 08: 50
    If it's hard to come up with a new airplane, why can't they just build it in the old body for now, packing it with new avionics, engines, and other bells and whistles to saturate the country with airplanes? But here, they prefer to squander money on lengthy research and design, which then turns out to be a failure, and there are no airplanes left, and the old ones are already used up. This applies to everything else in the country as well—cars, ships, machine tools, etc.
    1. +9
      24 May 2026 09: 15
      What do you know about managing funds? We once paved the street next door twice in one summer, and you're left with an old car body. Remember the Armata or the Shah-i-Mate plane? Live with that and don't dream of the impossible.
  7. + 10
    24 May 2026 08: 52
    In today's world, if we want to create a real, flying aircraft, we need to start with the engine. Take existing, production-proven engines and build an airframe around them. The payload capacity doesn't matter. fellow

    And under no circumstances should the military be allowed in, they are never satisfied, they will definitely lengthen it, increase the weight, force it to be forced... and in the end they will ruin the project. negative
    1. 0
      24 May 2026 17: 29
      They (the Air Force) might be able to pull off the project, but the Ministry of Defense is keeping a running budget, with funds only for current tasks. And most importantly, the technical specifications and requirements for Civil Aviation and Air Force aircraft are diametrically opposed, so there's no point in even considering the project, other than the budget cuts, or where and by whom it should be created after the mischievous hands of effective managers.
      1. 0
        25 May 2026 12: 57
        I'll never agree! I'll give you an example, albeit an American one, but a telling one! The P-39 wasn't designed as an airplane, but as a glider around a cannon! And it worked! And not bad at all! Read Pokryshkin's memoirs.

        No, they won't. They'll bury it. Because, as you rightly said, the technical requirements are different. For example, they'll immediately start reinforcing the floor to accommodate the tank. And that immediately adds weight... wink
    2. -1
      25 May 2026 04: 07
      Quote: Arzt
      In today's world, if we want to create a real, flying aircraft, we need to start with the engine. Take existing, production-proven engines and build an airframe around them. The payload capacity doesn't matter. fellow

      And under no circumstances should the military be allowed in, they are never satisfied, they will definitely lengthen it, increase the weight, force it to be forced... and in the end they will ruin the project. negative

      I'll never agree! I'll give you an example, albeit an American one, but a telling one! The P-39 wasn't designed as an airplane, but as a glider around a cannon! And it worked! And not bad at all! Read Pokryshkin's memoirs.
      1. 0
        25 May 2026 12: 48
        I'll never agree! I'll give you an example, albeit an American one, but a telling one! The P-39 wasn't designed as an airplane, but as a glider around a cannon! And it worked! And not bad at all! Read Pokryshkin's memoirs.

        The Americans, yes. They're doing just fine with aircraft engine manufacturing. They can make engines for any concept and payload.
        But we have to start from the beginning. Otherwise, it simply won't fly. laughing
  8. +1
    24 May 2026 08: 56
    If the Il 114-300 carries 60 passengers, and the Baikal up to 12, then with similar prices, the Il and Ladoga are in the middle of the capacity class, precisely for certain local and regional routes where the Il is large in performance and the Baikal is small in capacity. This niche remains unfilled, and that's precisely what the Ladoga is, no matter how much it costs. During operation, where the cost will obviously differ for the Il and Ladoga, the Ladoga will still pay for itself for operators.
    1. 0
      24 May 2026 14: 05
      Quote: Umptek
      This is just Ladoga, no matter how much it costs.
      No, no, that's not how it works in commerce. Even the military wouldn't get away with it these days.
      Quote: Umptek
      Ladoga will still pay for itself for its operators.
      They simply won't take it because "what if not."
  9. +3
    24 May 2026 09: 08
    It's sad, of course, but the main thing is that we are everywhere, wherever you look! What are we turning into?
  10. +4
    24 May 2026 09: 57
    So, they write both here and not here.
    IL - wasted it.
    Ladoga was a waste.

    To somehow salvage what was wasted, let's say, "Let's give the unfinished Ladoga to the military." They have plenty of money, cost isn't important, mass production isn't necessary, and then "either the donkey dies, or the emir."

    And the salaries and bonuses of all the untouchable Rogoins and Serdyukovs will continue to flow regularly.....
    and if anything happens, we'll scold them...
  11. +5
    24 May 2026 10: 18
    I flew as a navigator on the An-26. I never understood why it needed a ramp: 90% of what they were transporting could have been carried through the crew door. The An-24T would have completely covered all real-world tasks!
    1. +2
      24 May 2026 10: 54
      The An-24T would completely cover all real-world tasks!

      In the USSR, a lot was done "in reserve".
      The possibility of converting the An-10 into an An-12, for example. Besides the An-10's duplication with the Il-18, what led to the An-10's early retirement was the short-lived design, particularly in civilian use.
  12. + 10
    24 May 2026 10: 31
    The hucksters in the decrepit vertical power structure of the 90s, with a personnel policy bordering on idiocy, who found themselves in the corridors of power not because of, but in spite of, chance, are wretched in their professional skills and physically incapable of creative and proactive constructive work; they are solely and exclusively concerned with budgetary cash. In a deeply inherited society, essentially an imperialist autocracy, largely dependent on external control, with its inevitable degradation and regression, its systematic denaturalization, the destruction of state institutions under external control and according to their instructions, and the loss of sovereignty, it is ridiculous to hope for any progress and development of the state without the nationalization of the so-called state elites and the revival of a truly national system of education and upbringing.
  13. +1
    24 May 2026 10: 38
    But personally, I'm sorry that the An-24/An-26/An-30/An-32/An-34 family is being retired from our history. They were good machines!
  14. +4
    24 May 2026 10: 49
    There's no shame in buying planes from Boeing and Airbus, but what about from China, which developed the An-24 line?
  15. +4
    24 May 2026 10: 51
    There's some kind of crap with turboprops.
    The theater of operations remained with the USSR—thanks. The avionics, it seems, are produced in the country, but there's some kind of problem with the fuselage. And this applies to both single- and twin-engine aircraft.
    And they start writing about what they did, that it was very expensive.

    That's weird. Buy back the license from China for the AN24 and AN12...
    1. +3
      24 May 2026 14: 08
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Buy back the license from China for AN24 and AN12.
      So what should we do with it? We need people, and as far as I understand, not even aircraft builders, but those who build aircraft factories. Everything that was optimized needs to be restored.
  16. + 10
    24 May 2026 11: 02
    In this degenerating, decrepit system of government, built on nepotism, personal loyalty, and criminality, all these "movements" of seething parasites, incompetent hucksters, essentially, with their general irresponsibility and permissiveness, are just another budget embezzlement, and the end result is nothing. A "cowboy" can't even replicate it. The reality is that we've sunk to the level of the most backward countries and become wretched in every way within 30 years. Stalin, hated by the upper class, from scratch, even from a land of people without any real state after eight years of war and intervention, in 20 years of complete blockade, created a great empire that influenced the entire world community. And modern "advanced" and highly educated leaders, with their autocratic aspirations and the medieval greed of a serf, have destroyed their country, betraying their ideals and oaths. In just 30 years, they've transformed it from a great industrial power into a degrading territory subject to wholesale plunder by adventurers of all levels from around the world, deliberately populated by hordes with a culturally contradictory ethos. Their own upper-class elites, stupefied by free cash, complete permissiveness, and devoutly convinced of their own exceptionalism, chosenness, and irresponsibility, are waging a war to destroy their people and their civilization to the benefit of our existential, age-old enemies.
  17. 0
    24 May 2026 11: 25
    A friend of mine told me that his friend worked at Boeing, then got homesick for the Beryozha plant and came back. He made the following points. First, "My ideas are of no use here." And second, Boeings are made in factories all over the world, specifically the large components like wings and so on, then all the assemblies are brought to one place and assembled. But here, he says, just one factory can't even attach the tail to the fuselage. In short, he got homesick for Sequoias and went back. That's how they told me. He got what he paid for, as they say.
  18. +6
    24 May 2026 13: 11
    I read the latest "aviation news review" and... sad request belay To paraphrase a famous foreign politician, I would like to say: "You have to be a genius to be able to ruin the kind of aviation industry that the USSR had!" hi negative fool
  19. +5
    24 May 2026 15: 38
    The Federation Council is involved in aviation issues? Sounds outlandish. Let me guess, there won't be any TVRS-44, just like everything else that an effective manager has touched.
  20. +2
    24 May 2026 16: 03
    Good article. The only difference is that the An24 was real and flew. And it was created by a powerful design bureau.
    There is no TVRS and there won't be one. And the design bureau to create one doesn't exist either. In recent years, UZGA has been focusing more on "full budget utilization." And, to a certain extent (until 2022), on the L410 large-unit assembly.
    Considering that the TVRS project itself was based on lengthening the Czech L610, what kind of transport aircraft could it possibly become? Furthermore, after February 2022, the intellectual property rights to the L610 were sold to a third party; UZGA no longer holds them.
  21. +5
    24 May 2026 16: 49
    2 billion for such a small plane is a utopia. Everything related to the Ministry of Industry and Trade is ineffective. They once announced 400 million for Lake Baikal, now they're saying 2 million for Lake Ladoga.
    A 12-seat Cessna costs $4,5 million, or 320 million rubles, and is made in the USA. A Bombardier DHC-8-100, similar to the Ladoga, cost $12 million, or 900 million rubles, and is made in Canada. Shout out to the Ministry of Industry and Trade!
  22. -1
    24 May 2026 17: 04
    What's all this about? The Ministry of Defense has decided to use the Ladoga light transport aircraft as a basis for development, intending to lengthen it slightly and add a ramp. No one is encroaching on the civilian version of the Ladoga. Since Soviet times, the AN-24 and its military version, the AN-26, have existed. I've flown both. The difference is in comfort, whether you sit in a seat or on a folding bench.
  23. +6
    24 May 2026 17: 25
    We'd been dozing and copying papers for 20 years, and then it turned out that Soviet planes had SUDDENLY aged.
  24. DO
    0
    24 May 2026 19: 58
    And most importantly, regarding the passenger configuration: whether there will be room in this series for the purely civilian Ladoga, which Aurora flies, KrasAvia operates on, and for which Zorin from Angara calculates the economics, there is no public data yet.

    Why on earth would the military finance the development of a civilian aircraft in today's wartime? They wouldn't want to leave their army in the Central Military District unarmed.
    In recent years, UZGA has become accustomed to relying on state-funded projects, often without any noticeable results. Therefore, UZGA management is unlikely to undertake the proactive development of a civilian version of the Ladoga aircraft at the plant's expense, regardless of the consequences.
    Therefore, if targeted funding for the development of a passenger version of the Ladoga aircraft is not continued, regardless of military orders, the passenger Ladoga will likely suffer the same fate as the Altius UAV: ​​the prototype will be consigned to the trash heap, its documentation archived, and ultimately forgotten.
    1. 0
      31 May 2026 11: 54
      UZGA is a Ministry of Industry and Trade cesspool for laundering corrupt government funds. Three general directors in three years. It's like a conveyor belt, not an assembly line, but a laundering machine. This company has no expertise in aircraft manufacturing. No people, no experience. Maybe something will work out with the Belarusians like the Osveya, but that plane is half the size... And we're saying goodbye to the Ladoga, just as we said goodbye to the Il-112.
      1. DO
        0
        31 May 2026 19: 30
        Glagol1, yes, UZGA's history in recent decades hasn't been stellar. However, in Russia, the days of free rides are over; it's time for survival. Therefore, the state will be forced to clean up the mess at this plant.
        Yes, UZGA hasn't historically been a developer. But there are other Russian centers of excellence in aircraft manufacturing where aircraft design orders can be placed, while UZGA can handle prototype assembly, serial production, and testing.

        Quote: Glagol1
        We say goodbye to Ladoga

        Unlikely, since so many resources have been invested.
  25. +1
    24 May 2026 20: 35
    Only this time we are talking about 105 cars by 2030 according to the plan

    It would be more realistic to talk about 1,05 cars by this date.
  26. 0
    24 May 2026 20: 36
    The aircraft can be converted from a cargo plane to a troop carrier using folding seats along the sides. Parachute landing from a ramp is mandatory.

    WHY THE HELL?!
  27. +3
    25 May 2026 03: 59
    A case of cognac versus a bottle of mineral water—with the current management, Ladoga won't go into production. Just like Baikal.
    1. DO
      0
      25 May 2026 18: 37
      avia12005, there is a very significant difference between Baikal and Ladoga.
      The Baikal monoplane, which requires a long, prepared runway, is of no use to anyone in the wilderness, as no one will build new runways for the residents of the many small settlements today. Sales of the Baikal (which also has a hefty price tag) will be meager, and production is unprofitable. And since a replacement for the An-2 biplane has failed, they'll have to refurbish the old An-2s from storage; there's no other choice.
      But the Ladoga high-wing aircraft for unpaved runways appears to be quite suitable for the market (of course, this can only be definitively confirmed after testing is completed); small airlines desperately need such aircraft. And the suspension of the Ladoga's development at its final stage raises puzzling questions for the developer.
      If the military also needed its own version of this aircraft with a ramp, who's stopping them from developing it in parallel?
      1. +1
        26 May 2026 03: 47
        The problem is that the people appointed to "develop" the Ladoga are those who have never developed anything in their lives, but have only spent budget funds. Well, nothing will come of it.
      2. 0
        31 May 2026 12: 00
        The Ministry of Industry and Trade's announced price for the Ladoga is 2 billion rubles. At that price, no one—neither military nor civilian—will need it. This aircraft should cost half as much. If you commission a goat to build a water pumping station, no matter how much money you throw at it, it won't work.
        1. DO
          0
          31 May 2026 18: 36
          Quote: Glagol1
          The Ministry of Industry and Trade announced the price for Ladoga at 2 billion rubles.

          Can I get a link?

          Quote: Yandex AI
          In 2024, a letter from the State Transport Leasing Company (GTLK) mentioned the price of the Ladoga aircraft as part of an investment project for the procurement of aircraft. According to the document, the price was to increase annually by approximately 4% beginning in 2025, reaching 587 million rubles by 2032. However, this figure was approximate, as the aircraft had not yet been developed. The basic version with a minimal set of equipment was expected to cost around 200 million rubles, while more expensive modifications were to include modern equipment and systems.
  28. AVP
    +2
    26 May 2026 11: 44
    A few thoughts:
    1. UZGA has failed at almost everything it has undertaken.
    2. It's very interesting to look at the Ladoga's chief designer – a certain Merenkov, a former Antonov aircraft designer who defected to Russia after losing a bureaucratic battle in Kiev. Merenkov himself was heavily involved with the An-140 (a roughly identical aircraft to the Ladoga) at Antonov, including negotiations with Iran regarding the sale and localization of this aircraft under the guise of the Iranian An-140 (they wanted to build 80, but built 11 or 12). The type itself folded after about 35 aircraft. Now he's marketing the Ladoga, apparently with similar results.
  29. +1
    26 May 2026 17: 07
    I'm proposing a controversial idea. Why not use the American E-2d Advanced Hawkeye as a basis? Develop, on its basis, an AWACS aircraft, an ELINT and EW aircraft, and a military transport aircraft. Then, redesign the transport aircraft into a passenger aircraft for regional civil aviation. The result would be mutually beneficial. The R&D work will be expensive, but it should pay off. It seems to me that the key problem is a reluctance to think clearly and think long-term, a desire to grab money now, and a complete reluctance on the part of government officials, including the military, to put forward any ideas.
    1. AVP
      +1
      27 May 2026 12: 51
      It won't work for many reasons.
      The Hawkeye was designed for the narrow purpose of being a carrier-based aircraft. We had the Yak-44 and An-71 planned for similar roles, but in all cases the problem was with the internal components, not the aircraft itself (the Yak's engine was still in R&D). Then again, there's no current requirement to make a carrier-based airborne drone.
      Furthermore, the military's and civil aviation's goals are quite different. The former's primary concern is how long it can remain airborne—that is, its combat mission—while the latter's is economics. This is one of the reasons why the Il-114 was destroyed in the 90s. The desire to sell the aircraft to the military may have given it excellent range and takeoff and landing performance, but it made the design too heavy. This issue hasn't been resolved even today; the Il-114-300 requires a wing redesign (at a minimum).
      As an AWACS platform, we have the new Il-76, which is sufficient for this role. The problem is the speed of production. As an ELINT and EW platform, we have the Tu-214. None of these aircraft are suitable for local airlines.
      1. +1
        27 May 2026 16: 24
        I disagree. Firstly, a carrier-based AWACS aircraft can operate perfectly well from land-based airfields. Secondly, the A-100, based on the IL-76, never appeared in service; it doesn't exist. Thirdly, the American AWACS is based on a civilian Boeing 707. The Swedish one is based on a Bombardier business jet. Fourthly, the problem may be with the engine, but it can be solved. Fifthly, the Hokkai is first and foremost an ELINT aircraft, and only then an AWACS.
        1. AVP
          0
          28 May 2026 12: 26
          We were talking about the Hawkeye, a pure carrier-based aircraft with its uniquely reinforced landing gear, arrestor hook, seaworthy engine, and folding wings—improvements that are unnecessary on land, as they add weight to the structure, making it unprofitable for civilian use. The platforms you mentioned are not suitable for regional airlines.
          1. 0
            28 May 2026 18: 51
            So what's the problem? When developing the civilian version, the "weights" will be removed, but 70% of the components will remain.
            1. AVP
              0
              28 May 2026 21: 56
              The problem is very small - it doesn't work that way, and never has.
  30. 0
    27 May 2026 22: 14
    What? Another federal budget embezzlement project? Nothing new!