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.

Comments

[fzr1000]

It looks like a Ukrainian plane. Where are our products?

[Manager]

Quote: fzr1000

Where are our products?

They stayed in big politics! Unfortunately........

[ultra]

Quote: Manager

They stayed in big politics! Unfortunately.

Nah! They’re in another place, I would say in what education does not allow it!

[avt]

Quote: fzr1000

It looks like a Ukrainian plane. Where are our products?

Yes, from which side ?! If only two wings and four engines 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.

[Nicholas C.]

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 specialized and related exhibitions, and so on. and has signed contracts with Russia for billions of dollars, then Kiva ("Antonov Design Bureau") is somehow incapable of negotiation.

And such conspiracy theorists, like me, also believe that the bad documents in full "for acquaintance" to give the West for free.

[deviljaga]

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!

[fzr1000]

So on the side and looks like.

[avt]

Quote: fzr1000

So on the side and looks like.

Quote: agbykov

They tore off our AN-70 (at one time ours, "I don't know what to call it", during the tender NATO issued for "familiarization"

No, citizens, all the same, old tales taught life. Here Little Red Riding Hood clearly conducted a comparative analysis of the wolf and grandmother. Well, isn’t it really interesting why, say, one “tail” has “wings” at the top, and the other at the bottom? Well, isn't it interesting how many and in which direction the fan screws turn at one and the other? 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.

[fzr1000]

About "wings" or tail, etc. I understand.

BUT ALL LIKE SIMILAR.

[APASUS]

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 !!!

[a]

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

[Srgsoap]

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.

[agbykov]

They tore off our AN-70 (at one time ours, "I don't know what to call it," during the tender NATO issued a complete set of design documentation for it for "familiarization"), that's why it looks like ...
http://www.wing.com.ua/content/view/3999/38/

[fedorovith]

I read it, interestingly, and at the same time it is not clear how to steal a car that already lives.

[valokordin]

Got game, your mother so, no, to do your own, sold out to the gay people.

[Vtel]

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.

[ultra]

To issue modernization, albeit a deep one, for a new development is such a "noodle"!

[WS]

I understand that the main drawback of 476 is the small cross-sectional area of ​​the cargo compartment. (Compared to 70)

[Phantom Revolution]

The flaws of Il can be viewed on the same Wikipedia, although conditionally but not in favor of Il .....

[Wlad59]

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.

[PLO]

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

[Phantom Revolution]

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

[PLO]

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

did not quite understand what you wanted to say by this, specify

[Wlad59]

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.

[PLO]

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

[Wlad59]

"T-90 - Russian main battle tank. Dimensions: ... Hull width, mm 3780" - Wikipedia. "The IL-76MD-90A aircraft ... the width of the cargo compartment: 3.45 m." - UAC website. - maybe an inflatable tank in the photo?

[PLO]

"T-90 - Russian main battle tank. Dimensions: ... Hull width, mm 3780" - Wikipedia. "The IL-76MD-90A aircraft ... the width of the cargo compartment: 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

[Wlad59]

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)

[PLO]

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

[Wlad59]

"... 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 IL-476 cargo compartment is 3450 mm. !!! ((admit that you drank yesterday?

[PLO]

"... 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 IL-476 cargo compartment 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]

yes it looks all the same ...

[Ivan Tarasov]

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]

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.

[Wlad59]

And that Russia since. will do the documentation? Will it sell to the Chinese?

[Avenger711]

To produce as An-148 produces on its own head. We do not need Ukraine for this.

[Akim]

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.

[Avenger711]

As we discuss, it will be so. You are in no position to argue with us.

[Wlad59]

So Russia pr-in IL-476 mastered 8 years, although it would seem a trifle (some wing) ...

[il grand casino]

Oh and dear bird came out

[Algor73]

An-70 is an order of magnitude higher than the A-400M, and even more so the Il-476 (and not only through the diameter of the cargo compartment). Problems with the An-70 arise not through the Kivu (thanks to him, the design bureau and the plant are still alive), but through the fact that the enterprise is state-owned. 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 it was, "but things are still there ...". Sooner or later, the An-70 will be sold, the plane is too good, even to that China. It's just a shame from all this - two "greats" cannot give up, and most importantly, they lose both.

[cartridge]

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?

[Conepatus]

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 "borscht", "cabbage soup"
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.

[Avenger711]

Bring. You have had it for more than 10 years.

But nobody is teaching Ukrainian anyway.

[Alexander-Tomsk]

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.
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.

[Gooch]

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.

[Akim]

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.

[deviljaga]

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

[Akim]

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.

[deviljaga]

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)

[Akim]

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. It is possible to put analogs, but this will set us off another ten years. Or do you belong to the category that many forum users of the younger generation do: "We only need to do it ourselves. We are the best"? Forget this bravado, both Russian and Ukrainian respondents.

[deviljaga]

Therefore, this is a joint development.

Joint production, but development only Ukrainian (legally)

Or do you belong to the same category as many members of the forum of the younger generation: "We only have to do it ourselves. We are the best"? Forget this bravado, 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

[a]

Quote: chertjaga

Joint production, but development only Ukrainian (legally)

how can there be only Ukrainian development if Russia gave money for it?

[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/

[Alexander D.]

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 aircraft that were on the move were given to Rossi brotherly, like the project 1164 Atlant, so no need to remember the past - you can pick up a lot of bad G ... ...

[PSih2097]

Quote: Alexander D.

Admiral Kuznetsov is also a Soviet development, which was under construction in Nikolaev, and all the aircraft that were on the move were given to Rossi brotherly, like the project 1164 Atlant, so no need to remember the past - you can pick up a lot of bad G ... ...

And whose design bureaus developed them? clearly not Nikolaev and not Ukrainian, you can still remember "Ulyanovsk" with "Varyag" ...

[Conepatus]

You still say that they were built by visiting workers from Vologda, with the money raised in Ryazan schools.

[Alexander D.]

Quote: PSih2097

And whose design bureaus developed them? clearly not Nikolaev and not Ukrainian, you can still remember "Ulyanovsk" with "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.

[deviljaga]

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.

[a]

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

[Akim]

Quote: chertjaga

engines precisely Russian) of Russian production.

Here D-27 engines are definitely not Russian. Although there are many Russian developments.

[avt]

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 gritted their teeth that the machine was too complicated for the Chinese, they say they were not interested. Camping is definitely difficult to copy. judging even by the Geyvroptsky air bus number 400

[Wlad59]

"... The SOC1 package provides the possibility of initial tactical air transportation of goods and the use of self-defense means, SOC1.5 - full air transportation and the use of self-defense equipment. The following packages are still being developed ..." - judging by the article, the A-400M will be used (for now that) just as a carrier. We are not even talking about airborne landing! (and this is good news, as soon as the An-70 would have passed the state tests ... and into the series!

[nersmail]

Something very delayed this project. And the prices are crazy there. It will be difficult to fight with competitors, very hard

[desiscia]

An-70 price of 67 Lyam $ and A-400M 145 Lyam Euro, the difference is obvious.

[Alexander D.]

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]

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 type GTK, or 6 Land Rovers, or 1 Roland rocket launcher, or two 5 ton trucks with 2 105mm cannons, or 1 40ft ISO container, or 1 mobile crane.

In May 2003, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Great Britain, Turkey, Belgium and Luxembourg signed a joint agreement on the purchase of 212 A400M aircraft from EADS. Later, Italy withdrew from the project and the number of aircraft to be built was reduced to 180 "(WKP).

[sanych your division]

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.]

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)

[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.

[Alexander D.]

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.

[PSih2097]

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 ...

[Conepatus]

In addition to politicians, there is an aviation lobby. In this case, Ilyushin

[Alexander D.]

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]

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.

[Wlad59]

The right decision .... sell the Su-35 to China!

[Avenger711]

The answer is a broad Ukrainian, they themselves have nothing, so we must be blamed for the fact that we have a Su-35.

[Conepatus]

Not yours, but your parents. You have nothing but unhealthy sarcasm and hatred (hurt in the yard?).

[Akim]

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?

[a]

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.

[Akim]

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.

[Avenger711]

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.

[Akim]

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).

[a]

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.

[Akim]

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.

[a]

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 they are building a political state for themselves in "Russian". Some who want to attract the southeastern electorate speak well of Russia (as they do, I will not say anything). others want to attract the central-western electorate and, accordingly, do this with the help of Russophobic speeches. but I clearly divided that there are Russophobes in words and Russophobes in deeds. and so Tyagnibok and similar people, I think they are Russophobes in practice. it seems to me that they would rather be ready to ruin their economy than do something for Russia. Well, those who only attract the electorate with Russophobic words, I think it will be possible to deal pragmatically with them. politics is a dirty business. what people do not do to get into power.

yes, I ask you not to consider me either a "ukrainophobe" or an imperialist. I studied in Kiev :) many friends and acquaintances remained there. and I went to Crimea more often than to Sochi :)

[Akim]

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.

[a]

Quote: Akim

I am out of politics.

on that and finish :)

[Conepatus]

The best option for Antonov is to design a new aircraft. Take the best technical developments with the An-70 (only those developed in Ukraine) and look for other partners. The chassis, for example, was made by the Russian Hydromash, so you need to look for similar ones in profile companies and make them proposals. It may work out, there is no point in waiting for changes from the Russian side.

[Hudo]

Quote: Conepatus

The best option for Antonov to design a new aircraft

To our deep regret, the best options for Antonov simply DO NOT EXIST. The kugutocracy that has been ruling in Ukraine for more than 20 years will sooner or later finish off the plant. And the fact that the color of technical thought is collected on "Antonov" will only prolong the agony. The stillborn state pulls into the grave everything that its thieving hands can reach.

[Conepatus]

Nothing of the sort. Antonov's trouble is the lack of funding.
And the authorities are more interested in how to "commune" more money from the budget.
I hope more on Boguslaev. Maybe he decides to unite the aviation industry of Ukraine into one corporation.

[Avenger711]

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.

[Conepatus]

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?

[Alexander D.]

Quote: Conepatus

The best option for Antonov is to design a new aircraft. Take the best technical developments with the An-70 (only those developed in Ukraine) and look for other partners. The chassis, for example, was made by the Russian Hydromash, so you need to look for similar ones in profile companies and make them proposals. It may work out, there is no point in waiting for changes from the Russian side.

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.]

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) !!!

[PLO]

Are you talking about this?

According to the resource "Transport Business", the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine has suspended funding for the serial production of the military transport aircraft An-70 pending the resolution of disputes with the state enterprise "Antonov". This was announced 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, made by order of the Antonov SE. Against this background, the position of the Russian Ministry of Defense, which has been regularly transferring all the planned funds for this project over the past three years, cannot but cause admiration.

[Conepatus]

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.

[PLO]

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

[Conepatus]

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.

[PLO]

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)

[a]

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]

You can only learn how Europeans are able to negotiate, plan and implement their plans ...