Military Review

Airbus Militari began flight tests of the second production aircraft A-400M

54
Airbus Militari began flight tests of the second production aircraft A-400M

Airbus Militery announced the launch of a flight test of the second serial ATS-400M (MSN008) at the plant in Seville (Spain). The first flight took place 7 June.


This aircraft must be handed over to the French Air Force in the third quarter of 2013.

According to Cedric Gauthier, A-400M Program Manager, the first flight of MSN008 was somewhat delayed due to the small delay associated with the transfer of the first production aircraft, MSN007. The MSN007 acceptance process continues, the handover ceremony is to take place in late June or early July.

According to the Airbus Militi, in the 2013, four aircraft will be handed over to customers (three to France and one to Turkey). The third aircraft (MSN009) will be delivered to the Turkish Air Force, and the fourth (MSN010) will be delivered again to the French Air Force.

Delivery of the first A-400M British Air Force (MSN016) and Germany (MSN018) is scheduled for 2014 year, Malaysia (MSN022) for 2015 year, Spain (MSN046) for 2016 year, Belgium (MSN133) for 2019 year.

The aircraft will be delivered with six versions of the software, gradually improving the algorithms. In the middle of 2013, a version of initial readiness for combat use will be supplied. Incremental standards will include: initial operational capability (mid 2013 of the year), standard 1 maintenance package (Standard Operating Clearance - SOC) will be ready at the end of 2013 of the year, SOC1.5 at the end of 2014 of the year, SOC2 - at the end of 2015 of the year, SOC2.5 - at the end 2017 of the year and SOC3 - at the end of the 2018 of the year.

The SOC1 package allows for the initial tactical air transportation of goods and the use of self-defense, SOC1.5 - the full air transportation and use of self-defense. The following packages are under development.

Aircraft with b / n MSN009-MSN012 are currently in the process of final assembly in Seville, and aircraft with b / n MSN013-MSN027 - in various stages of production.

Currently, parts with long production times have been ordered for A-400M aircraft according to MSN032 inclusive.
Originator:
http://www.armstrade.org/
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. fzr1000
    fzr1000 11 June 2013 14: 26 New
    +5
    It looks like a Ukrainian plane. Where are our products?
    1. Manager
      Manager 11 June 2013 14: 39 New
      +7
      Quote: fzr1000
      Where are our products?

      They stayed in big politics! Unfortunately........ crying
      1. ultra
        ultra 11 June 2013 15: 09 New
        +3
        Quote: Manager
        They stayed in big politics! Unfortunately.

        Nah! They’re in another place, I would say in what education does not allow it!
    2. avt
      avt 11 June 2013 15: 21 New
      +1
      Quote: fzr1000
      It looks like a Ukrainian plane. Where are our products?

      request Yes, from which side ?! If only two wings and four engines laughing An-70 is an order of magnitude better and no matter what, but when they covered An-7X together with the Germans and tried to push the An-70 into the European market, the Geyvropeans didn’t get anything concrete, either by airframe or by a propeller installation. So they mess with their flying high-altitude and can’t provide the declared characteristics and just bring it to mind. But the bad thing is that the An-70 was buried.
      1. Nicholas C.
        Nicholas C. 11 June 2013 15: 43 New
        +2
        If with Ukraine and with Antonov’s design bureau the situation will continue to remain unchanged for years, Russia will have to develop and produce the very same aircraft. It is a pity that Russia will not be able to approach this soon.

        This is the role of personality in history. If Boguslaev (Motor Sich) wants to produce as much as possible for Russia, he participates in all relevant and related exhibitions, etc. and has concluded contracts with Russia for billions of dollars, then Kiva ("Antonov Design Bureau") is for some reason not negotiable.

        And such conspiracy theorists, like me, also believe that the dumb dumb documentation in full "for familiarization" is free to give to the West.
        1. chertjaga
          chertjaga 11 June 2013 16: 14 New
          -1
          Kiba is not negotiable because for 20 years he has not deigned to be sold to Russian oligarchs? Or why is Kiba not negotiable?

          KB Atonova with her daughters is alive only thanks to Kiba!
      2. fzr1000
        fzr1000 11 June 2013 16: 22 New
        +2
        So on the side and looks like. winked
        1. avt
          avt 11 June 2013 16: 46 New
          +2
          Quote: fzr1000
          So on the side and looks like.

          Quote: agbykov
          They ripped off our AN-70 (at one time ours, "I don’t know what to call," were given out for "familiarization" during a NATO tender

          No, citizens, all the same, old tales taught life. Here Little Red Riding Hood clearly conducted a comparative analysis of the wolf and grandmother. laughing Well, isn’t it really interesting why, say, the “tail” of one “wing” has at the top and the other at the bottom? Well, isn’t it interesting how many and in which direction the fan rotates in one and the other? laughing Well, they didn’t pass them An -70 with giblets. Therefore, they cannot bring their air bus to their minds, but they do a series, but on the contrary, they seem to have brought the car as a whole, but the series is a big deal. request
          1. fzr1000
            fzr1000 11 June 2013 17: 50 New
            0
            About the "wings" or tail, etc. I understand.

            BUT ALL LIKE SIMILAR. request laughing
    3. APASUS
      APASUS 11 June 2013 17: 04 New
      +3
      Quote: fzr1000
      It looks like a Ukrainian plane.

      When Ukrainians and I began to butt around the An-70, the A-400M was not in the plans! Now he is passing the test and the dirty fuss is still ongoing !!!
    4. a
      a 11 June 2013 21: 42 New
      0
      Quote: fzr1000
      It looks like a Ukrainian plane. Where are our products?


      Actually, it began to be designed later than the AN-70, and the external similarity at one time led to discussions that someone from the Antonov bureau leaked technical documentation to the Erbas residents
    5. Srgsoap
      Srgsoap 11 June 2013 22: 17 New
      0
      Yes, unfortunately, it’s not just like ... In the 90s, documentation leaked, but I can’t say 100%. It is a pity there is no VAF Sery, he would definitely put everything on the shelves.
  2. agbykov
    agbykov 11 June 2013 14: 40 New
    +2
    They ripped off our AN-70 (at one time ours, "I don’t know what to call," during the NATO tender they gave out a "complete set of design documentation" for review), which is why it looks like ...
    http://www.wing.com.ua/content/view/3999/38/
    1. fedorovith
      fedorovith 11 June 2013 21: 06 New
      0
      I read it, interestingly, and at the same time it is not clear how to steal a car that already lives.
  3. valokordin
    valokordin 11 June 2013 14: 45 New
    +1
    Got game, your mother so, no, to do your own, sold out to the gay people.
  4. Vtel
    Vtel 11 June 2013 14: 53 New
    +1
    The IL-476 aircraft is equipped with new PS-90A-76 engines and a reinforced wing. The transporter is capable of transporting up to 60 tons of cargo and developing speeds of up to 850 kilometers per hour. The flight range of the IL-476 is about six thousand kilometers. It’s also nothing.
    1. ultra
      ultra 11 June 2013 15: 11 New
      +8
      Issuing a modernization, albeit a deep one for a new development, is such a "noodle on your ears"!
    2. WS
      WS 11 June 2013 15: 28 New
      +2
      I understand that the main drawback of 476 is the small cross-sectional area of ​​the cargo compartment. (Compared to 70)
      1. Phantom Revolution
        Phantom Revolution 11 June 2013 20: 20 New
        -1
        The flaws of Il can be viewed on the same Wikipedia, although conditionally but not in favor of Il .....
      2. wlad59
        wlad59 11 June 2013 20: 24 New
        0
        The main disadvantage: the inability to land loaded on an unpaved runway (short). The events of 08.08.08 showed this clearly ... and after that Russia again (officially) returned to the project.
        1. PLO
          PLO 12 June 2013 00: 57 New
          +1
          The main disadvantage: the inability to sit loaded on an unpaved runway (short

          ha dreamer
          especially about the performance of events 888

          the only drawback of the IL-476 is the slightly smaller diameter of the fuselage; in all other respects, it surpasses the An-70 both in range and in carrying capacity as a transport aircraft
          1. Phantom Revolution
            Phantom Revolution 12 June 2013 10: 36 New
            0
            Quote: olp
            the only drawback of the IL-476 is the slightly smaller diameter of the fuselage; in all other respects, it surpasses the An-70 both in range and in carrying capacity as a transport aircraft

            http://alex-palagin.livejournal.com/16021.html
            1. PLO
              PLO 12 June 2013 11: 20 New
              +1

              http://alex-palagin.livejournal.com/16021.html

              did not quite understand what you wanted to say by this, specify
          2. wlad59
            wlad59 12 June 2013 11: 43 New
            -2
            So the IL-476 TRANSPORT plane turns out to be! Then why the hell did he surrender to the military? They need a MILITARY TRANSPORT (inexpensive, unpretentious hard worker) PS A slightly smaller cargo compartment diameter (only 0.5 meters) entails huge consequences! IL-476 cannot transport a tank, but An-70 can.
            1. PLO
              PLO 12 June 2013 12: 08 New
              +1
              So the IL-476 TRANSPORT plane turns out to be! Then why the hell did he surrender to the military? They need a MILITARY TRANSPORT (inexpensive, unpretentious hard worker)

              the difference between the military-technical cooperation and the vehicle is the installation of additional equipment, it’s far from the same as developing a new aircraft, in any case, the Il-476 doping to the MTC will be much faster than the ditching and deployment of the An-70


              A slightly smaller diameter of the cargo compartment (only 0.5 meters) entails huge consequences! IL-476 cannot transport a tank, but An-70 can.

              oh .. your mustache peeled off belay


              1. wlad59
                wlad59 12 June 2013 14: 36 New
                -2
                "T-90 - the Russian main battle tank. Dimensions: ... Width of the hull, mm 3780" - Wikipedia. "Aircraft IL-76MD-90A ... cargo compartment width: 3.45 m." - UAC website. - maybe an inflatable tank in the photo?
                1. PLO
                  PLO 12 June 2013 14: 51 New
                  +1
                  "T-90 - the Russian main battle tank. Dimensions: ... Width of the hull, mm 3780" - Wikipedia. "Aircraft IL-76MD-90A ... cargo compartment width: 3.45 m." - UAC website. - maybe an inflatable tank in the photo?

                  rather you have inflatable brains)
                  there is still one unlikely option that this is the width with side screens that can be easily removed
                  By the way, I wonder where did you get the width of the T-90? too big even with screens

                  transportation of T-72/80/90 tanks by IL-76 aircraft is a rare but possible task
                  for example, the Indians drag their T-90S, another T-90S was transported to one of the exhibitions also on the 76th.
                  there was a case of transportation BREM-80 to IL-76
                  1. wlad59
                    wlad59 12 June 2013 15: 01 New
                    -2
                    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2-90 Кто врет... вы или википедия? я думаю первый вариант ближе к истине. (База Т-90 мм. 4270)
                    1. PLO
                      PLO 12 June 2013 15: 07 New
                      +1
                      http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2-90 Кто врет... вы или википедия? я думаю первый вариант ближе к истине. (База Т-90 мм. 4270)

                      funny .. got into an ostrich position? tricky move
                      in the same wikipedia, by the way, it is clearly indicated that overall width T-90S 3460mm, so you probably do not even know how to read

                      you can continue to believe that the tanks do not fit in the IL-76, the reality will not change from this lol
                      1. wlad59
                        wlad59 12 June 2013 15: 23 New
                        -2
                        "... in the same wikipedia, by the way, it is clearly indicated that the total width of the T-90S is 3460mm." - so the width of the cargo compartment of the IL-476 is 3450 mm. !!! ((admit that you drank yesterday?
                      2. PLO
                        PLO 12 June 2013 15: 37 New
                        +1
                        "... in the same wikipedia, by the way, it is clearly indicated that the total width of the T-90S is 3460mm." - so the width of the cargo compartment of the IL-476 is 3450 mm. !!! ((admit that you drank yesterday?

                        your brain is clearly more and more inflated and presses on the eyes

                        I’m even a special word for you overall highlighted.
                        this is the width with the side screens (dynamic protection), just without them in the photo the tank leaves the IL-76
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 11 June 2013 15: 18 New
    +3
    yes it looks all the same ...
  • Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 11 June 2013 15: 39 New
    0
    They started after us and are already overtaking ...
    When the An-70 is brought to mind, it is time to work out new projects, and they have been tinkering with this for 30 years and will not give any harmony.
    Shame on you
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 11 June 2013 15: 42 New
    -1
    Meanwhile, Ukraine is persistently trying to give us the An-70, and from that we can profit from it. No, really! Those. all the documentation here, and there let them as they want and sell it.
    1. wlad59
      wlad59 11 June 2013 18: 33 New
      0
      And that Russia since. will do the documentation? Will it sell to the Chinese?
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 11 June 2013 20: 55 New
        0
        To produce as An-148 produces on its own head. We do not need Ukraine for this.
        1. Akim
          Akim 11 June 2013 20: 57 New
          0
          Quote: Avenger711
          To produce as An-148 produces on its own head.

          The rights to the final product belong to Ukraine. It's like with the S / J-100 just the opposite.
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 12 June 2013 01: 22 New
            0
            As we discuss, it will be so. You are in no position to argue with us.
        2. wlad59
          wlad59 11 June 2013 23: 39 New
          +1
          So Russia pr-in IL-476 mastered 8 years, although it would seem a trifle (some wing) ...
  • il grand casino
    il grand casino 11 June 2013 16: 54 New
    0
    Oh and dear bird came out
  • Algor73
    Algor73 11 June 2013 17: 06 New
    +5
    An-70 is much higher than A-400M, and especially IL-476 (and not only through the diameter of the cargo compartment). Problems with the An-70 arise not through Kivu (thanks to him, the design bureau and the plant are still alive), but because the state-owned enterprise. It is through this that the GDP (such an opinion) puts pressure on Ukraine, forcing it to join the CU. Motor Sich is a joint stock company. But no matter how there, "and things are there ...". Sooner or later, the An-70 will be sold, it hurts a good plane, even that China. It’s just a shame from all this - the two “greats” cannot give up, and most importantly, they lose the wallpaper.
    1. cartridge
      cartridge 11 June 2013 18: 09 New
      0
      An-70 is much higher than A-400M, and especially IL-476 (and not only through the diameter of the cargo compartment).


      I did not understand your statement about the procedure for measuring height. From your words it follows that if the height of the A-400 and IL-76, incl. and the cargo compartment is measured in meters, then the An-70 it is more than an order of magnitude and therefore should be measured in figures of a different order, that is, tens of meters.
      You yourself realized that they wrote illiterate nonsense? Or, as always, words are ahead of thought?
    2. Conepatus
      Conepatus 11 June 2013 19: 18 New
      -1
      In order for the An70 to go into production, Ukraine needs;
      1-Join the vehicle
      2-So that all of Western Ukraine speak Russian
      3-give GTS
      4-give Crimea
      5-cancel in Ukrainian schools
      6-call "borsch", "cabbage soup" smile
      It’s easier to bring the AN-70 with someone else. You can sell to China (guaranteed to buy). Maybe America can be outbid, not that it needs it, just so that China does not get it.
      And then the Russians will start yelling, they say Ukrainians are bad !!!! They did not want to bend for the sake of the plane in front of Russia.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 11 June 2013 20: 56 New
        +1
        Bring. You have had it for more than 10 years.

        But nobody is teaching Ukrainian anyway.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Alexander-Tomsk
        Alexander-Tomsk 11 June 2013 21: 17 New
        -4
        Quote: Conepatus
        It’s easier to bring the AN-70 with someone else. You can sell to China (guaranteed to buy). Maybe America can be outbid, not that it needs it, just so that China does not get it.


        What a generous Ukrainian, we (Antonov Design Bureau) built built and ... sell China. Pfff themselves are not offended, all their long and hard work, many years of development and implementation to give in fact for no reason?
        Wake up, no one will bring this project with you, the same Europeans have already built their own, almost complete copy. But you and the Chinese didn’t give up, they will buy a project, leave the partnership and do it themselves.
        As a result, time goes on and you all remain at a trough, but proud - We ourselves with a mustache. laughing
        PS Oh yes, I liked the points right paranoia blooms, you need to add an item, destroy all the bacon and vodka, ideally fits the above.
      3. Gooch
        Gooch 12 June 2013 07: 18 New
        +2
        Quote: Conepatus

        And then the Russians will start yelling, they say Ukrainians are bad !!!! They did not want to bend for the sake of the plane in front of Russia.
    3. Akim
      Akim 11 June 2013 20: 04 New
      +3
      Quote: Algor73
      Problems with the An-70 arise not through Kivu (thanks to him, the design bureau and the plant are still alive), but because the state-owned enterprise.

      An-70 intellectual property of Russia and Ukraine. The official Kremlin allegedly does not need it (although BTA Russia needs it). but he intends to give it completely to Ukraine. This is just a matter of politics. If there was a previous order of 60 aircraft, everything would be fine.
      1. chertjaga
        chertjaga 11 June 2013 20: 46 New
        -2
        An-70 intellectual property of Russia and Ukraine


        All aircraft An-s models belong only to Antonov Design Bureau (that is, Ukraine), and no one else. And therefore, Russia has no rights to An-s

        The official Kremlin allegedly does not need it (although BTA Russia needs it).

        BTA Russia doesn’t need An-s, just everyone wants to rake An-am, and in the current scenario, the bulk of the money from the sale should have been transferred to Antonov Design Bureau + taxes to the budget of Ukraine, and Russian business does not like this
        1. Akim
          Akim 11 June 2013 20: 55 New
          +3
          Quote: chertjaga
          All aircraft An-s models belong only to Antonov Design Bureau (that is, Ukraine), and no one else. And therefore, Russia has no rights to An-s

          The aircraft uses many Russian developments. in order to get away from such dependence, Ukraine needs to produce its own analogues or buy them over the hill. But it’s impossible to do this.
          1. chertjaga
            chertjaga 11 June 2013 21: 27 New
            0
            The plane uses a lot of Russian developments


            All Russian developments can be replaced with analogues.
            The most important thing in an airplane is a glider (or also called a wing), and so the glider belongs to Antonov Design Bureau and produced, is tested in Ukraine in one of the daughters of KB.
            And Russian enterprises are just contractors (or subcontractors)
            1. Akim
              Akim 11 June 2013 21: 37 New
              +5
              Quote: chertjaga

              All Russian developments can be replaced with analogues.
              The most important thing in an airplane is a glider (or also called a wing), and so the glider belongs to Antonov Design Bureau

              Therefore, this is a joint development. You can put analogues, but it will throw us another ten years. Or do you belong to the category that many forum users of the younger generation: "We need to do only ourselves. We are the best"? Forget this bravado by both Russian and Ukrainian respondents.
              1. chertjaga
                chertjaga 11 June 2013 21: 53 New
                +1
                Therefore, this is a joint development.

                Joint production, but development only Ukrainian (legally)

                Or do you belong to the category that many forum users of the younger generation: "We need to do only ourselves. We are the best"? Forget this bravado by both Russian and Ukrainian respondents.

                And what are we worse?
                We must look for other contractors who will not try to squeeze the company, but will be engaged in the manufacture of parts, assembly and possibly sale of products
                1. a
                  a 11 June 2013 21: 57 New
                  +1
                  Quote: chertjaga
                  Joint production, but development only Ukrainian (legally)


                  how can there be only Ukrainian development if Russia gave money for it?
                  1. agbykov
                    agbykov 11 June 2013 22: 17 New
                    +3
                    The history of AN-70 began in the year 1965. Beginning of TTX - 1976 approval. The beginning of full-scale development is 1986 year. This is a product of the USSR ...
                    see: http://www.airforce.ru/content/okb-antonova/58-70-vzlet-i-padenie/
                    1. Alexander D.
                      Alexander D. 12 June 2013 01: 06 New
                      -2
                      Quote: agbykov
                      The history of AN-70 began in the year 1965. Beginning of TTX - 1976 approval. The beginning of full-scale development is 1986 year. This is a product of the USSR ...
                      see: http://www.airforce.ru/content/okb-antonova/58-70-vzlet-i-padenie/

                      Admiral Kuznetsov is also a Soviet development, which was under construction in Nikolaev, and all the TAKRs that were on the go went to Russia fraternally, like the Atlas project 1164, so you don’t have to remember the past - you can take a lot of bad G ... from the bottom .
                      1. PSih2097
                        PSih2097 12 June 2013 01: 32 New
                        0
                        Quote: Alexander D.
                        Admiral Kuznetsov is also a Soviet development, which was under construction in Nikolaev, and all the TAKRs that were on the go went to Russia fraternally, like the Atlas project 1164, so you don’t have to remember the past - you can take a lot of bad G ... from the bottom .

                        And whose design bureau developed them? obviously not Nikolaev and Ukrainian, you can still recall Ulyanovsk and Varyag ...
                      2. Conepatus
                        Conepatus 12 June 2013 01: 49 New
                        +1
                        You still say that they were built by visiting workers from Vologda, with the money raised in Ryazan schools.
                      3. Alexander D.
                        Alexander D. 12 June 2013 21: 22 New
                        -2
                        Quote: PSih2097
                        And whose design bureau developed them? obviously not Nikolaev and Ukrainian, you can still recall Ulyanovsk and Varyag ...

                        So the An-70 was developed at Antonov Design Bureau - accordingly, Ukraine has the same rights to An-70 as Russia has to Admiral Kuznetsov or the cruiser Moscow.
                2. chertjaga
                  chertjaga 11 June 2013 22: 22 New
                  -1
                  how can there be only Ukrainian development if Russia gave money for it?


                  I understand this regarding the An-70. I am not familiar with the intricacies of the contracts, but I believe that the An-70 is still the development of the design bureau and belongs to him, the participation of the Russian side is the use of certain components (in my opinion, the engines are exactly Russian) of Russian production.
                  1. a
                    a 11 June 2013 23: 26 New
                    +2
                    Quote: chertjaga
                    I understand this regarding the An-70. I am not familiar with the intricacies of the contracts, but I believe that the An-70 is still the development of the design bureau and belongs to him, the participation of the Russian side is the use of certain components (in my opinion, the engines are exactly Russian) of Russian production.


                    you're not right. Russia's participation was not limited to the provision of any nodes. Russia paid with real money for the development of the aircraft. Ukraine also had to allocate money. Accordingly, the right holders are those who pay
                  2. Akim
                    Akim 11 June 2013 23: 36 New
                    +2
                    Quote: chertjaga
                    engines precisely Russian) of Russian production.

                    Here D-27 engines are definitely not Russian. Although there are many Russian developments.
  • avt
    avt 11 June 2013 18: 07 New
    0
    Quote: Algor73
    Sooner or later, the An-70 will be sold, it hurts a good plane, even that China.

    Immediately after the oxygen of An-7X with the Germans was blocked in Evriope, a sample was sent to the exhibition in China, this was before the accident and was restored in Omsk .NO request gritted their teeth that the machine was too complicated for the Chinese, they say they were not interested. Camping is definitely difficult to copy. laughing judging even by the Geyvroptsky air bus number 400 laughing
  • wlad59
    wlad59 11 June 2013 18: 38 New
    +1
    "... SOC1 package provides the possibility of the initial tactical air transportation of goods and the use of self-defense means, SOC1.5 - the full air transportation and use of self-defense means. The following packages are still being developed ..." - judging by the article, the A-400M will be used (for now that) just like a carrier. We are not even talking about airborne landing! (and it pleases, as soon as the An-70 would have passed state tests ... and in series!
  • nersmail
    nersmail 11 June 2013 18: 42 New
    +2
    Something very delayed this project. And the prices are crazy there. It will be difficult to fight with competitors, very hard
  • desiscia
    desiscia 11 June 2013 19: 57 New
    +3
    An-70 price of 67 Lyam $ and A-400M 145 Lyam Euro, the difference is obvious.
    1. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 12 June 2013 01: 03 New
      0
      Quote: desiscia
      An-70 price of 67 Lyam $ and A-400M 145 Lyam Euro, the difference is obvious.

      Oh, not a fact. Putin has a lot of money - taxpayers are a fig to buy from Airbus A400M, instead of producing the An-70 themselves.
  • aviamed90
    aviamed90 11 June 2013 20: 03 New
    0
    Maybe someone, from the point of view of strategy, will clearly explain - why does the French Air Force and other peace-loving countries need such a military transport plane?

    "Payload: 120 paratroopers or soldiers or 66 stretchers with escorts or 37000 kg of cargo or 41000 kg of fuel, loading options: 2 RAH-2 Tiger or AH-64 Apache helicopters, or 1 Cougar, NH90 helicopter, or 1 armored vehicle of the type GTK, or 6 Land Rover vehicles, or 1 Roland rocket launcher, or two 5-ton trucks with 2 105-mm guns, or 1 40-foot ISO container, or 1 mobile crane.

    In May 2003, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Belgium and Luxembourg signed a joint agreement to purchase 212 A400M aircraft from EADS. Italy later withdrew from the project, and the number of aircraft to be made was reduced to 180 "(WKP).
    1. sanych your division
      sanych your division 12 June 2013 00: 18 New
      +1
      hmm ... you would see why here in France you have to fall out with a parachute. if the Germans still contain their Transzal then the French ... in short, it's time for them already that long ago. there is really no replacement. and with A 400 it will be possible to ride. even new parachute systems are imprisoned for him.
  • uzer 13
    uzer 13 11 June 2013 20: 28 New
    -2
    If the joint production agreements were concluded with Airbus, and not with Ukrainian talkers, then they would have already flown on new airplanes, and it would have been cheaper. Ukrainians themselves support their producer from their budget (to put it mildly)
    1. Conepatus
      Conepatus 11 June 2013 20: 33 New
      +1
      An-70 should have been made in RUSSIA !!!!!
      Either Russia needs An-70, then it is unnecessary. Then again it is needed and again it is not needed.
      So who is the talker here, at least a moot point.
      1. Alexander D.
        Alexander D. 12 June 2013 01: 01 New
        -1
        Quote: Conepatus
        An-70 should have been made in RUSSIA !!!!!
        Either Russia needs An-70, then it is unnecessary. Then again it is needed and again it is not needed.
        So who is the talker here, at least a moot point.

        For Russia, let it be made in Russia, but for Ukraine it is possible in Kharkov. It seems all 70s are produced.
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 12 June 2013 01: 40 New
          0
          Quote: Alexander D.
          For Russia, let it be made in Russia, but for Ukraine it is possible in Kharkov. It seems all 70s are produced.

          In my opinion it’s easier to do like Airbus (part in England, part in France), I think the same thing to do and in this case the Russian Federation and Ukraine will share responsibilities, but I think as long as politicians do not squander (what exactly), there will be nothing worthwhile, we can recall example, about one T90 and three Leopards 2 for one price tag, according to one general from the General Staff ...
          1. Conepatus
            Conepatus 12 June 2013 01: 50 New
            -1
            In addition to politicians, there is an aviation lobby. In this case, Ilyushin
    2. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 12 June 2013 01: 00 New
      -1
      Quote: uzer 13
      If the joint production agreements were concluded with Airbus, and not with Ukrainian talkers, then they would have already flown on new airplanes, and it would have been cheaper. Ukrainians themselves support their producer from their budget (to put it mildly)

      And you already have an agreement with Airbus - in Russian airlines, Airbus and Boeing are very common. A lot of you have seen Ilov passenger recently ???
  • tegezen
    tegezen 11 June 2013 20: 47 New
    +3
    Russia contributed its financial share for the An-70, but Ukraine did not. Kiva’s intentions are in the palm of his hand - to modify the plane for Russian money, and dispose of one. We pay development costs for development at our own expense, deploy the series, provide the main order, bear all the risks, are guilty in advance of everything that will not work, but it’s tricky .. partners will order the music, curse and wear white suits. Russia has the 476th, and it needs to be moved, with the current Ukraine, you can cook porridge.
    1. wlad59
      wlad59 11 June 2013 20: 53 New
      0
      The right decision .... sell the Su-35 to China!
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 12 June 2013 01: 21 New
        +2
        The answer is a broad Ukrainian, they themselves have nothing, so we must be blamed for the fact that we have a Su-35.
        1. Conepatus
          Conepatus 12 June 2013 01: 37 New
          -2
          Not yours, but your parents. You have nothing but unhealthy sarcasm and hatred (hurt in the yard?).
    2. Akim
      Akim 11 June 2013 20: 59 New
      -1
      Quote: tegezen
      Russia contributed its financial share for the An-70, but Ukraine did not.

      But there is reverse information that Russia has not invested a dime for two years now. And whom to believe?
      1. a
        a 11 June 2013 21: 56 New
        +5
        Quote: Akim
        But there is reverse information that Russia has not invested a dime for two years now. And whom to believe?


        as far as I know, they don’t invest. last 2 years. and before that they invested constantly.
        the issue of building the AN-70 is a political problem, first of all. and the point here is not that Russia does not like what language they speak in Ukraine or whether it is part of the CU or not. Ukraine itself is unclear what it is now. Yesterday Yushchenko, Sedna Yanukovych, tomorrow Yatsenyuk or maybe Tyagnibok. What could be the matter with Yushchenko, Yatsenyuk, Tyagnibok ?? and I think it’s especially not worth building any business with Yanukovych. for one simple reason, you are at home in Ukraine, first figure out where you are going and with whom you are going. it is impossible to do something joint if not just some figures are in power, but people with clearly expressed Russophobic views. Why does Russia need to support such authorities ?? therefore, the An-70 problem will not be solved until Ukraine has its clear, distinct position.
        1. Akim
          Akim 11 June 2013 23: 29 New
          +2
          Quote: uno
          Why does Russia need to support such authorities ??

          This is a political issue. But we must work with any Ukraine. The economy is now linked more than politics. Half of the country gravitates to Russia, half to the West. As Timokha did not criticize Russia, but Putin relied on it. Now she is again politically speaking out AGAINST. This is beneficial for them to rank. And Tyagnibok (God forbid if he becomes President) will also not be able to break off economic ties. So do not aggravate your thoughts.
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 12 June 2013 01: 20 New
            +1
            Who needs? I understand that you? We will perfectly live without you, and you will not go to the world without selling the An-70 to us. Regarding cooperation with you, the other day there was a correct article, which stated in plain text that so far there can be no cooperation in itself.
            1. Akim
              Akim 12 June 2013 01: 31 New
              -1
              Quote: Avenger711
              We will live well without you,

              Live - good luck. I am not going to enter into an argument or into a discussion. All the same, everyone will remain in their opinion. I am not in the Supreme Council nor you in the State Duma. I'm more interested in the fact that Shevchuk is not allowed to sing in Russia (and is not allowed to organize concerts).
          2. a
            a 12 June 2013 11: 37 New
            +2
            Quote: Akim
            This is a political issue.


            When politicians come to power who, at the expense of their Russophobic rhetoric, try to raise their rating, this is understandable, although frankly speaking it is unpleasant. But when the authorities will have frank Russophobes, who will put on economic ties with Russia, or will not put on economic ties, but will conduct frankly Russophobic. politics (and not just engaging in Russophobic rhetoric) how can Russia build economic relations with such power ??? especially in very sensitive military matters.
            1. Akim
              Akim 12 June 2013 12: 28 New
              -2
              Quote: uno
              When politicians come to power who, at the expense of their Russophobic rhetoric, try to raise their rating, this is understandable, although frankly speaking it’s unpleasant. But when in power there will be frank Russophobe

              But is it not the same? Listen to you, so everyone around is plotting against Russia. it already looks like a mania of persecution and resembles the Stalin era. all who dislike you - Russophobia. and then the return road begins - as with Borjomi from Georgia. So you can’t pour all over. Friends except the army and navy may not remain. in the USSR after the war, such a policy was not pursued, and before that, too, they were only friends with Mongolia.
              1. a
                a 12 June 2013 13: 16 New
                +2
                Quote: Akim
                But is it not the same?


                no, this is not the same thing. some simply work in language, while others actually pursue such a policy.
                By the way, I can’t call Julia Russophobic. But not from the fact that she is not like that, but because he always believed that money came first for her. and with whom to do them, the question is already secondary

                Quote: Akim
                Listen to you, so everyone around is plotting against Russia. it already looks like a persecution mania


                You don’t know how you hear, but you read clearly badly. I did not say that oats are plotting. I divided the politicians into two categories — those who are engaged in Russophobia in words and who in practice. that's all. there is no mania. but there is a reality according to which when certain politicians come to power it will be hard to work with them. for example, I don’t imagine that if people like Tyagnibok come to power, Farion can work with them. many in Ukraine consider these people extreme Russophobia. I personally doubt that they would want military-technical cooperation between Ukraine and Russia.

                Quote: Akim
                all who dislike you - Russophobia


                why all. no, not all. but only those who really do it. for example, many do not like Americans or Western Europeans. but they do not consider them Russophobes. because Western figures are defending the interests of their country. but they don’t tell the children in their kindergarten that the name Natasha, Petya, Misha is not the correct name. and the correct one is Natalka, Petryk, Mykola.


                Quote: Akim
                So you can’t douse everyone ..


                and who pours slop? or the division of people into Russophobia and others is already pouring mud? Yes, you yourself know very well that you have Russophobic politicians. is not it? I do not rank all politicians as Russophobes. frank russobophobes, in my opinion, these are people of Tyagnibok. Yatsenyuk, before I seemed to be a pragmatic politician, he did not consider him an outspoken Russophobe. As Tymoshenko did not consider such, Klitschko.
                It’s just that your political condition is being built in Russian. Some who want to attract the south-eastern electorate speak well of Russia (as they do, I will not say anything). others want to attract the central-western electorate and, accordingly, do it with the help of Russophobic speeches. but I clearly divided that there are Russophobes in words and Russophobes in practice. So Tyagnibok and similar people, I consider them Russophobes in practice. It seems to me that they would rather be ready to ditch their economy than to do something for Russia. well, and those who only attract the electorate with Russophobic words, with them, I think, it will be possible to conduct business pragmatically. politics is a dirty business. which only people don’t do to get into power.

                Yes, I ask you not to consider either a “Ukrainophobe” or an imperialist. I studied in Kiev :) many acquaintances and friends stayed there. Yes, and more often traveled to the Crimea than in Sochi :)
                1. Akim
                  Akim 12 June 2013 13: 45 New
                  -1
                  Quote: uno
                  if people like Tyagnibok come to power, Farion can work with them. many in Ukraine consider these people extreme Russophobia

                  I do not defend the interests of Pharion and Tyagnibok (God forbid me!), But they are the same balabol as Tymoshenko and they don’t do anything worthless in their lives, striving for the top by speculating on feelings and moods. They will remove this screen if they hypothetically come to power - otherwise their electorate will put this pile on a pitchfork. As for Yulka - they may not accent you - this is politics, but I still remember her words in 2004 about the barbed wire around Lugansk area. She saw a world-wide concentration camp. This greedy and bloodthirsty Su ... ka, which is ready for anything in order to achieve the goal. She is hypocritical. As for Klitschko - this is not a politician. The athlete will always remain an athlete. Even if he is the best.
                  So that you do not think that I support power - I am generally against all of them. I am out of politics.
                  1. a
                    a 12 June 2013 13: 49 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Akim
                    I am out of politics.


                    on that and finish :)
  • Conepatus
    Conepatus 11 June 2013 23: 02 New
    -1
    The best option for Antonov is to design a new aircraft. Take the best technical developments from the An-70 (only those developed in Ukraine) and look for other partners. The chassis, for example, was made by the Russian Gidromash, so you need to look for similar ones in profile firms and make proposals to them. It may work, waiting for changes on the Russian side makes no sense.
    1. Hudo
      Hudo 11 June 2013 23: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: Conepatus
      The best option for Antonov, design a new plane


      Unfortunately, the best options for “Antonov” simply DO NOT EXIST. The kugutocracy ruling in Ukraine for more than 20 years will sooner or later finish the plant. And the fact that the color of technical thought has been collected at Antonov will only prolong the agony. A stillborn state pulls into the grave everything that its stolen hands reach.
      1. Conepatus
        Conepatus 11 June 2013 23: 33 New
        -1
        Nothing of the kind. The trouble with Antonov is the lack of funding.
        And the authorities are more interested in how to "moderate" more money from the budget.
        I hope more on Boguslaev. Maybe he decides to unite the aviation industry of Ukraine into one corporation.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 12 June 2013 01: 17 New
          +2
          No, Antonov’s misfortune, which, unlike the Moscow design bureaus, was all built in Kiev, and he also has a transport office that cuts loot in Ukraine, as if it were non-profitable.
          1. Conepatus
            Conepatus 12 June 2013 01: 26 New
            -2
            I’m bastard of your logic. Does it seem to you that during the Union, everyone built everything everywhere, and the rest huyne suffered? If you are all so hardworking and hand-made, why do you have the main export product of raw materials?
    2. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 12 June 2013 00: 56 New
      -2
      Quote: Conepatus
      The best option for Antonov is to design a new aircraft. Take the best technical developments from the An-70 (only those developed in Ukraine) and look for other partners. The chassis, for example, was made by the Russian Gidromash, so you need to look for similar ones in profile firms and make proposals to them. It may work, waiting for changes on the Russian side makes no sense.

      Production of the chassis is the minimum problem that can be done on Yuzhmash, as for the An-148 ... But the production of the airframe and avionics - yes. In general, the production of this aircraft would be better to establish in Kharkov, as well as the 72nd and 74th (at least for the needs of Ukraine)
  • Alexander D.
    Alexander D. 12 June 2013 00: 53 New
    -3
    Yes, uzhzh ... it’s like in that joke - if you, mom, would show off less, you wouldn’t shoot yourself dad))) If someone would show off less with the exits and entrances to the project, then WE would be in his place ( An-70) !!!
    1. PLO
      PLO 12 June 2013 01: 01 New
      +2
      Are you talking about this?
      According to the Transport Business resource, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine suspended financing of serial production of the An-70 military transport aircraft until resolving disputes with the Antonov state enterprise. This was reported by a source in the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, who wished to remain anonymous.
      According to the source, the cause of the conflict lies in the misuse of Antonov by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine (MOU). “Three years ago, the Ministry of Defense transferred SE Antonov more than UAH 100 million. for serial production of the first two An-70 aircraft, however, these funds were spent on re-equipment of production and purchase of equipment for the Antonov serial plant, but not directly on the production of aircraft. The arguments that rigging and equipment are used to produce An-70 aircraft does not stand up to criticism, as the money was directed specifically for the manufacture of specific aircraft. Because of this, the Ministry of Defense has so far suspended project funding until a conflict has been resolved, ”the source said.

      Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine - Chief of Staff Volodymyr Mozharovsky indirectly confirmed this information by saying that the MOU jointly with Antonov SE concentrated on testing a new aircraft, and the issue of serial production and its financing is a subject of negotiations. “We do not refuse the An-70 project, the Ukrainian army needs it, there are certain issues, they are being discussed, but on the whole the project is promising,” V. Mozharovsky said. At the same time, he found it difficult to answer the question about the amount of financing for the project in 2013 from the budget of the MOU and the possible volumes of procurement of these aircraft. “We will proceed from the amount of funding allocated for the purchase of new weapons, but so far these volumes have not been determined,” he said.


      according to available information, TAPOiCH never received payment for two sets of wings, commissioned by Antonov. Against this background, the position of the Russian Ministry of Defense, which regularly transfers all the planned funds for this project over the past three years, cannot but be admired.
      1. Conepatus
        Conepatus 12 June 2013 01: 19 New
        -2
        This is an internal showdown. You, too, are not going smoothly between the Ministry of Defense and the arms manufacturers.
        The last two years, Russia has not invested in the An-70.
        Come up with something else. Although no, don’t. All your ideas I know.
        Just An-70, this is an indicator of relations between Ukraine and Russia. An-70 zagnetsya, lose Ukraine forever. You may not believe it, but it is.
        1. PLO
          PLO 12 June 2013 01: 31 New
          +4
          This is an internal showdown. You, too, are not going smoothly between the Ministry of Defense and the arms manufacturers.

          the point is not only in internal disassemblies, but in the fact that these disassemblies relate to external agreements.

          The last two years, Russia has not invested in the An-70.
          Come up with something else. Although no, don’t. All your ideas I know.

          funny otmaza.
          why then is Ukraine outraged about the refusal if the Russian Federation did not invest money in the project at all? with the logic you have)
          come up with something smarter ..

          Just An-70, this is an indicator of relations between Ukraine and Russia. An-70 zagnetsya, lose Ukraine forever. You may not believe it, but it is.

          scared a hedgehog with a bare ass)
          if this final gap ever happens, then Russia will bring many problems, but for Ukraine it will become fatal
          1. Conepatus
            Conepatus 12 June 2013 01: 45 New
            -3
            What agreements? How many times has Russia left the project? Two? Three?
            Ukraine is not outraged, it simply states the fact of the lack of funding from Russia.
            How would you not like the death of Ukraine, but we will extend, and preferably without your participation.
            1. PLO
              PLO 12 June 2013 01: 59 New
              +1
              What agreements? How many times has Russia left the project? Two? Three?
              Ukraine is not outraged, it simply states the fact of the lack of funding from Russia.

              and the lack of funding from Zimbabwe does not bother Ukraine? also, after all, is not involved in the project.
              stupid to say something that should not be, come up with something better

              How would you not like the death of Ukraine, but we will extend, and preferably without your participation.

              MDE .. I have a feeling that it is you who want Russia to want the death of Ukraine, because then you can justify all the problems)
              pull out, you can without our participation)
        2. a
          a 12 June 2013 02: 45 New
          +2
          Quote: Conepatus
          Bend An-70, lose Ukraine


          what kind of Nostradamus appeared :) Ukraine will live without the An-70. All the more so, Russia will live without it. Yes, and without Ukraine, too, will live. although this is not correct. but you are just blackmailing us — you won’t bring An-70 to mind and lose Ukraine. for any blackmail there is only one answer, goodbye. because if you give in to blackmail now, tomorrow you will start blackmailing with something else. and further around. no really. we don’t need this. behave yourself and everything will be fine. Well, you want to constantly blackmail, I'm sorry, go your way.
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 12 June 2013 00: 58 New
    0
    You can only learn how Europeans are able to negotiate, plan and implement their plans ... hi