Russian Civil Aviation: News

Airbus and Boeing are dominant in everything down to single aisle regional and business jets which Embraer has a chunk of.

Graphics Warning Dead Bodies: Video of the terminal

RIP Brothers

Airbus and Boeing are dominant in everything down to single aisle regional and business jets which Embraer has a chunk of.

When you take a 20 year break from an industry you can't just walk back in at the top of the game and you can't expect the other players to wait till you get back.

Of course the Russian aircraft industry is not being supported by its government the way that Boeing and Airbus have been supported by theirs so of course there will be trouble getting back into the market... it is hardly a reason not to do it.

The Russian government has to realise that without support and funding the Russian aircraft makers would be at an enormous disadvantage to companies that do get such support and if they don't pull finger and start supporting Russian aircraft companies soon then the result will be no Russian alternative when looking for an aircraft for a particular role.

There isn't much room for Russia especially if they won't buy their own aircraft.

The military have a lot of older aircraft that need urgent replacement like the Il-38 May, the Il-20M Coot, and lots of other older aircraft. If they can pull finger and start replacing them with new aircraft the subsidy should make production cheaper and make the aircraft more competitive... which is exactly what Boeing and Airbus to to make their airliners cheaper... subsidise their price through government orders.

GarryB wrote:The ukraine is too flaky and unpredictable.

They could turn on Russia at the next election and be a real pain in the a$$ like it has in the fairly recent past.Russia really doesn't need that sort of crap.

Russia should look after its own first because its enemies will never give it credit for anything positive it does to foster good ties.

Let Antonov fail... and Russia can buy it up cheap and transfer it to Russia, or it could just let it die and let Ilyusion and Tupolev and Beriev fill the void... it is not like they can't build good planes too.

Well the problem with Antonov is they are too dependent on Russia for eg 70 % of component for An-148 comes from Russia , Antonov as a design bureau is good , they make fairly decent engine but major component is procured from Russia.

If there is no Russia support Antonov will simply crumble be it military or civil aviation.

So any leader that comes in the future needs to take into account this factor , that Russia is a large market for Antonov products and they still source major components from them.

They have been talking about re-engining the Il-76 for years and nothing has happened because the PS-90s cost something like 6 million dollars each. Bad enough for the price of one engine but when you need 4 engines per aircraft plus spare engines and parts you start to think maybe the higher fuel burn is not that much of a problem. $24 million dollars per aircraft for new engines to save a few thousand litres of kerosene every year... it might be cheaper to burn the extra kerosene.

Well the PS-90A1 and PS-90A2 are pretty much good engine and can compete against their western peers , the PS-90A2 is a ETOPS-120/180 rated engine.

They are already providing the option to reengine the older D-30 engine with PS-90A2 if required , but perhaps the airframe line of older IL-76 may not justify the cost of new engine ,the newer airframe on IL76M or IL-476 may go for new engine.

I have read of a more modest upgrade of the D-30 engines that modestly improves performance with no increase in thrust but a 10% reduction in fuel burn and the engines cost about $800,000 each.

Yeah they have some Bulark D-30 upgrade program that improves D-30 fuel burn performance, might be worth for older existing IL-76

Yes 20 years is a long time and they have almost lost the Wide Body Market during that period. Also we need to understand the fact that even during Soviet Union days building a great commercial aircraft that competes with Airbus/Boeing was really not their forte.

I think their greatest weakness was their high fuel consumption civil engine , the SU was good with Military engine but could not be the same with Civil Aircraft engine.

I think Russia realises their weakness and are investing in developing engine that can compete well with existing Western type and future variants , PS-90A2/A1 and PD-14 is something that comes to my mind.

Where they couldnt develop something immediately they went for co-development like SaM-146 for SSJ. Thats a smart business decision.

Then there is the An-148/158 that seems to be doing good , not an entirely russian product but significant Russian inputs and components.

All in all they will do quite well in the coming decade in civil aviation market specially in Regional Jet and Single Isle Market.

They should invest in reminding their main bottle neck which is to increase production of aircraft to like 50-60 per per year rather then in 10's or single digit for a single type.

Now what I got from Polet airlines chief interview is that they would like to buy more IL-96-400T as it is doing quite well but Russia production plant cannot make more then 2 in best case per year and right now they have to delay delivering IL-96-400T since 2 new IL-96PU is being developed for production.

If they just end up building 2 aircraft per year in Wide Body market there is no way they can every dream of competing with Boeing and Airbus that can make 25-40 aircraft per year in that segment.

The other improvement they need to do is to improve their quality standards in materials to match up with the best and keep the cost low compared to the West.

Once they get rid of the two key bottle neck they will do quite well in the Civil Market.

Well the problem with Antonov is they are too dependent on Russia for eg 70 % of component for An-148 comes from Russia , Antonov as a design bureau is good , they make fairly decent engine but major component is procured from Russia.

Russia had all the same problems the Ukraine has had with the ripping apart of their industries.
If the Ukraine wants to turn west then it can start looking west for partners to help its industry, and such a change can happen the night after an election of a government that is pro west and anti Russian and there are several of those in the Ukraine.
The question is should Russia gamble that ties with the Ukraine will remain good or get better?
Remember it was the Ukraine that was stealing gas meant for Europe which got the Russians blamed for erratic energy supply and accused of using energy as a weapon.
It is not rocket science... where the Ukraine and Russia are concerned they are now separate independent countries, so if a Russian company is making something that needs foreign parts it could look to the Ukraine, but then it could just as easily look to any other foreign country too.
The Russian military and Russian government should favour aircraft and material with all Russian components first, and if they are not good enough then licence production of the better stuff made in Russia should be the second option.
Foreign made parts should only be acceptable where the foreign made parts are made by a genuine ally like India or Serbia rather than a fair weather friend like the Ukraine.

The huge irony is that with all the rubbish about Russia being responsible for famines in the Ukraine as genocide is that Oleg Antonov was Russian. The policy to spread industry to the various republics was a Soviet policy.

If there is no Russia support Antonov will simply crumble be it military or civil aviation.

And if there was not support or customers for Airbus it would crumble too, but why would Russia care?
If Antonov crumble the Russians might consider buying it at a low price, but then Boeing or Airbus might consider it a cheap way to get their expertise too.

Russia could spend money bailing out Antonov and the Ukrainian shipyards by giving them work that could otherwise be done in Russia, but how can Russia be sure such gestures would even be appreciated in 10 years time or at the next election?

What is the point of helping the Ukraine now when you suspect when it is a little stronger it will leap into the arms of the west and turn its back on you at the first opportunity?

So any leader that comes in the future needs to take into account this factor , that Russia is a large market for Antonov products and they still source major components from them.

That has been the case since the Antonov Design Bureau was created yet in recent years during the coloured revolutions it wasn't important... the west was going to save them and the Russians were the source of all their problems and were holding them back.
It failed this time around but what about next time?

Yeah they have some Bulark D-30 upgrade program that improves D-30 fuel burn performance, might be worth for older existing IL-76

If the prices haven't changed then it might make economic sense to fit the upgraded engines rather than the new ones because the purchase price difference is probably more than the extra fuel burn costs and maintainence costs. More expensive engines will require more expensive components...

I think their greatest weakness was their high fuel consumption civil engine , the SU was good with Military engine but could not be the same with Civil Aircraft engine.

I disagree, I think purchases during the cold war had more to do with political sphere of influence than any performance issues... France was hardly going to buy Boeings rather than Airbus's and Aeroflot was hardly going to buy Concordes rather than Tu-144s.

The rest of the world was divided the same way... Cuba wouldn't take Boeings even if they were free because the US would simply do to them what they did to Hugo Chavez's F-16s and cut off support.
With its experience with US equipment Iran might want Boeings but it is buying Antonovs because they are not subject to US sanctions.

I think Russia realises their weakness and are investing in developing engine that can compete well with existing Western type and future variants , PS-90A2/A1 and PD-14 is something that comes to my mind.

I would think that the lack of investment for the last 20 years effected Russian engines as much as it did Russian aircraft makers.
They will find that all the new stuff to too expensive for most of its traditional customers and even when they can make state of the art engines again they will find mainly domestic buyers because their traditional clients are now either part of NATO and would reject Russian stuff simply for being Russian, or they are former Soviet client states whose economies have not done as well as Russia and are in no position to spend 6 million dollars on a plane let alone an engine.

All in all they will do quite well in the coming decade in civil aviation market specially in Regional Jet and Single Isle Market.

The only way out of a rut created by not spending money for 20 years is to start spending money again. It wont happen overnight (the spending or the getting out of the rut), but it wont happen at all if the money isn't spent or it is spend on foreign companies products.

If they just end up building 2 aircraft per year in Wide Body market there is no way they can every dream of competing with Boeing and Airbus that can make 25-40 aircraft per year in that segment.

A natural result of not spending for 20 years. Of course when no one needs your planes you are going to greatly reduce your production capacity. Now that orders are coming however it is time to start spending money to increase production capacity. Increasing too far will lead to as many problems as not increasing production capacity enough. This is where they should go to the current military users of their aircraft and ask them how many they are likely to want and how many they anticipate they will buy and make production expansion plans accordingly.

The other improvement they need to do is to improve their quality standards in materials to match up with the best and keep the cost low compared to the West.

Sorry... what? Much of the metal that goes into western aircraft comes from Russia. Without Russian metal the F-35 wouldn't be built. Can you point me to information about the substandard materials Russian aircraft are made of?

Once they get rid of the two key bottle neck they will do quite well in the Civil Market.

They can make a profit on the Civil market but I prefer they made replacement for obsolete military aircraft. I would also like to see an inflight refuelling tanker based on the Il-96 and an inflight refuelling aircraft based on a much smaller and cheaper aircraft too so that the number of inflight refuelling aircraft became comparable to the number of aircraft fitted with inflight refuelling probes. Especially if their long range UAVs under development can be programmed to refuel in flight.

GarryB wrote:I disagree, I think purchases during the cold war had more to do with political sphere of influence than any performance issues... France was hardly going to buy Boeings rather than Airbus's and Aeroflot was hardly going to buy Concordes rather than Tu-144s.

The rest of the world was divided the same way... Cuba wouldn't take Boeings even if they were free because the US would simply do to them what they did to Hugo Chavez's F-16s and cut off support.

With its experience with US equipment Iran might want Boeings but it is buying Antonovs because they are not subject to US sanctions.

Well if you look at how SU civil aircraft got sold it was mostly operated by Warsaw countries ,tradation Soviet client states , the same went for Western/US aircraft.

But if it was a neutral country Airbus/Boeing sold more aircraft competing compared to SU did , Western Aircraft were more fuel efficient,Technologically Advanced and were more competitive then those built by SU.

I would think that the lack of investment for the last 20 years effected Russian engines as much as it did Russian aircraft makers.
They will find that all the new stuff to too expensive for most of its traditional customers and even when they can make state of the art engines again they will find mainly domestic buyers because their traditional clients are now either part of NATO and would reject Russian stuff simply for being Russian, or they are former Soviet client states whose economies have not done as well as Russia and are in no position to spend 6 million dollars on a plane let alone an engine.

I think what Russia is doing is the right thing , it is co-developing components like Engine where it is known to be weak and involving global companies in avionics other areas to get globally competitive and certified components, Check out Superjet and MS-21 aircraft and how globally sourced components are procured for it , this will make aircraft expensive though less expensive then similar western types but will be equal or better similar western types with Russian and Euro standards certified.

On the other hand there are cheaper options available from Antonov which build types in Regional Category has mostly Russian and Ukranian components and are cost effective types to procure and operate , it may not have global player on its list but still is a competitive aircraft and sells well in domestic and international market looking for cheaper alternatives.

The only way out of a rut created by not spending money for 20 years is to start spending money again. It wont happen overnight (the spending or the getting out of the rut), but it wont happen at all if the money isn't spent or it is spend on foreign companies products.

That is what they are doing right now , putting money where the mouth is and making globally competitive products , it will take time but they will have their own niche market in a decades time , I think their goal is to occupy 15 % of global civil market in the next 15 years.

This is where they should go to the current military users of their aircraft and ask them how many they are likely to want and how many they anticipate they will buy and make production expansion plans accordingly.

I agree the military should buy civil types like Tu-204 and IL-96 for new generation AWACS ,Refullers ,ELINT aircraft etc.

Sorry... what? Much of the metal that goes into western aircraft comes from Russia. Without Russian metal the F-35 wouldn't be built. Can you point me to information about the substandard materials Russian aircraft are made of?

What I mean by materials is not related to metal but material standards used in entire aircraft be it avionics ,subcomponents and every thing that goes into making the complete aircraft , they should in the long run source all components and materials locally and build local made components to global standards.

If you check the Sukhoi Superjet and MS-21 aircraft you will realise many components are being procured from western and US companies.

Russia’s aerospace revival
http://www.asianaviation.com/articles/60/Russia-s-aerospace-revival

Makes an interesting read on An-148 operational challenges

Supporting An-148
A Pilot's Passion
Sharing experience
An-148 proves worthy of airline service

Well if you look at how SU civil aircraft got sold it was mostly operated by Warsaw countries ,tradation Soviet client states , the same went for Western/US aircraft.

Lets face it... back then each aircraft maker had its own captive markets and any supposedly neutral countries were open to bribes or were only officially neutral and it depended on whether a left or right government was in power.

But if it was a neutral country Airbus/Boeing sold more aircraft competing compared to SU did , Western Aircraft were more fuel efficient,Technologically Advanced and were more competitive then those built by SU.

I disagree. The difference in fuel efficiency rarely covered the difference in price and ownership costs. If your airfields were not first grade westernised and expensive then you would find your nice sophisticated western aircraft were useless because they had no built in stairs and needed airstairs to get the passengers in and out of the aircraft. No problem in west Berlin, but not so great in the Congo.

Check out Superjet and MS-21 aircraft and how globally sourced components are procured for it , this will make aircraft expensive though less expensive then similar western types but will be equal or better similar western types with Russian and Euro standards certified.

Parts of some Boeing aircraft are made in Russia already, there is no aircraft type that has all its parts made in one country any more.

Russia needs to make sure it reinvests the money it makes in selling aircraft to improve its own ability to make more and more of the aircraft in Russia so the profits stay in Russia and the work.

That is what they are doing right now , putting money where the mouth is and making globally competitive products , it will take time but they will have their own niche market in a decades time , I think their goal is to occupy 15 % of global civil market in the next 15 years.

Not really. I don't think the Russian military and the Russian government are doing enough to support their own companies.

If you check the Sukhoi Superjet and MS-21 aircraft you will realise many components are being procured from western and US companies.

They used to source those sorts of components from former Soviet states that are now foreign countries. Now they need to get Russian companies to make these parts so they can reduce their costs and spend money in Russia.

GarryB wrote:Lets face it... back then each aircraft maker had its own captive markets and any supposedly neutral countries were open to bribes or were only officially neutral and it depended on whether a left or right government was in power.

Well captive market is all fine there may be political reason in some cases , but by and large many impartial observer would agree that though Soviet aircraft were cheap to procure , they were not cheap to operate ,failure hours were lower compared to western type ,lacked Global MRO , were not fuel efficient and were not as technologically advanced to varying degree.

May be for SU fuel were not an issue as they have abundant of it and components were totally manufactured in SU so lower component failure was not a issue , but for export customer fuel would be an issue and over a period of 25 years this would increase operating cost compared to western types and lower hours failure rate would mean they would spend more time in maintenance waiting for spared then in air.

Check even today An-145 are known to have reliability issue link

The airline has been using the aircraft since June. In the three months to September, including aircrew training flights, the company's five An-148 aircraft flew 1,725h with Rossiya. In that time, 235 problems occurred, requiring over 2,000 man-hours of repair work.

In one 92-day period, one aircraft was unfit to fly for 89 days, Rossiya says.

Rossiya says incidence of technical failure in its fleet occurred once every 344h in the An-148, every 5,355h in its Airbuses, and 2,824h in its Boeing 737s.

One of the key reason Superjet 100 and MS-21 are being built to Western realibility and technologically standards yet keeping cost lower compared to similar western types.

I disagree. The difference in fuel efficiency rarely covered the difference in price and ownership costs. If your airfields were not first grade westernised and expensive then you would find your nice sophisticated western aircraft were useless because they had no built in stairs and needed airstairs to get the passengers in and out of the aircraft. No problem in west Berlin, but not so great in the Congo.

Fuel cost does matter specially some times in mid 70 when cost went high exponentially and today its still quite high and in the future it will just rise and resources are used and fuel becomes precious.

I think having stairs are nice to have feature but not a killer feature , it wouldnt take much to have a vehical with stairs attached and move to the doors when the aircraft lands

Parts of some Boeing aircraft are made in Russia already, there is no aircraft type that has all its parts made in one country any more.

Russia needs to make sure it reinvests the money it makes in selling aircraft to improve its own ability to make more and more of the aircraft in Russia so the profits stay in Russia and the work.

Well we are not taking of small components but really core components , check MS-21 international suppliers

http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=MS-21

Not really. I don't think the Russian military and the Russian government are doing enough to support their own companies.

If you check the Sukhoi Superjet and MS-21 aircraft you will realise many components are being procured from western and US companies.

True they can do much more.

They used to source those sorts of components from former Soviet states that are now foreign countries. Now they need to get Russian companies to make these parts so they can reduce their costs and spend money in Russia.

They did that but again reliability and quality was not upto western standards

Well captive market is all fine there may be political reason in some cases , but by and large many impartial observer would agree that though Soviet aircraft were cheap to procure , they were not cheap to operate ,failure hours were lower compared to western type ,lacked Global MRO , were not fuel efficient and were not as technologically advanced to varying degree.

I am sorry but that is nonsense. Every civilian aircraft purchase during the cold war had political implications and decisions made had little to do with aircraft performance.

Otherwise there would be no need for Airbus AND Boeing. They both make the same aircraft for different markets. If the markets ignored politics then one or the other company would win and the other would die.
The reality is that Boeing and Airbus mostly survived on enormous military subsidies from their own governments.

May be for SU fuel were not an issue as they have abundant of it and components were totally manufactured in SU so lower component failure was not a issue , but for export customer fuel would be an issue and over a period of 25 years this would increase operating cost compared to western types and lower hours failure rate would mean they would spend more time in maintenance waiting for spared then in air.

Fuel price was nothing if your spare parts supplier was Boeing and you happened to be Iranian airlines. Politics came first... if you looked East you bought east and the same for west. After that came the quality of the hookers and bribes supplied by the competing companies (Airbus and Boeing). A distant third was the quality of the aircraft. As long as it could do the job the official that made the decision to buy couldn't care less about fuel efficiency... he already bought a yacht with the money he was bribed with and it never moves from the pier because he gets sea sick.

Check even today An-145 are known to have reliability issue link

And even today the F-15, pride of the USAF has wing problems, what is your point?

Today after being starved of money for 20 years a Ukrainian design has a few reliability issues... I would expect all Soviet aircraft to be grounded by now if you were right, yet there are lots of old aircraft flying and making profits... how can that be?

You'd think the An-3 would sell in enormous numbers, but it seems that simple operation and most of the engineers working on the An-2 know its engine and don't care about the fuel they would save, what they care about is keeping the aircraft flying which will be harder if they have to change to a new turboprop engine they are not familiar with, don't have the tools or spare parts for, or the training to fix.

BTW I think you will find that Boeing 737s and Airbuses had a few reliability issues during their first few years of service, this is just part of the process of getting a plane into service. You are comparing a new aircraft to mature designs. Very unfair.

I think having stairs are nice to have feature but not a killer feature , it wouldnt take much to have a vehical with stairs attached and move to the doors when the aircraft lands

And your passengers freeze to death because western aircraft don't have cloak rooms for heavy coats on their aircraft so the walk to the terminal in -30 degree temperatures is really fun.

Like I said Western aircraft are designed for well equipped airfields and there aren't that many if you look at the whole world and not just the west.

Well we are not taking of small components but really core components , check MS-21 international suppliers

Who is talking about small components?

On December 27, 2007 Boeing and VSMPO-Avisma created a joint venture Ural Boeing Manufacturing and signed a contract on titanium products deliveries until 2015, with Boeing planning to invest $27 billion in Russia over the next 30 years.

Not Titanium ingots or just Titanium, but Titanium products.

They did that but again reliability and quality was not upto western standards

Who cares about western standards? Not everything needs to be gold plated.
These are transport planes for people and cargo, not luxury hotels.

I would like to see the Russians set their own standards that are different to western standards that western planes have jump through hoops to meet, and then the Russians can talk about western aircraft being upgraded to meet Russian standards and they can be all snotty and upper class like the western aholes that seem to have influenced your attitude so much.

There are safety standards and there are quality standards.

Safety standards are obviously important. Quality standards above a certain level are BS.

No point in aiming for Concorde standard when most passengers will be after budget flights.

If you want cheap tickets... and 99% of passengers do, then improving "quality" is counter productive.

Looks like a new variant of PS-90 i.e. PS-90A3 has been flight tested which meets AP-33, American FAR-33 and European JAR-33 regulations , wonder if this is a ETOPS rated engine , PS-90A2 is ETOPS 180 rather engine but has some hot parts from P&W and PS-90A3 looks like an attempt to make a PS-90A2 rated engine with all Russian sourced components

PS-90A3 Engine Certified for Flights

In January 2011 the aircraft engine PS-90A3 has been certified.

PS-90A3 is a modification of PS-90A2 which was certified in 2009. The new development of Perm Design Bureau has kept all the advantages of PS-90A2 regarding the baseline engine: higher jet pipe temperature margin, higher capacity of major components and improved autopilot system.

PS-90 has been certified in accordance with the Chapter 6 of airworthiness certification standards - 3 as it localizes the detachment of the shelf part of fan blade. The work is currently being done in Perm to reduce the weight of PS-90A2 fan body.

More info more details

Presidential Air Group buys A319 aircraft
Maxim Pyadushkin http://ato.ru/

Special flying squad "Russia" Administration of the President of Russia is planning this year to get two short-haul Airbus A319 aircraft and two helicopters AgustaWestland.

Information about this is contained in the tender documentation of the tender for the right to a state contract for works on the program documenting the technical state of aircraft for certification of copies of aircraft and the establishment of resources and the tenure of aviation equipment, posted the Arctic Ocean, "Russia" on the site www.zakupki.gov.ru on January 27.

From these documents show that in the presidential squadron awaiting receipt of A319 aircraft in December 2011, and helicopters AgustaWestland, in October this year. Thus, the squadron expands the use of foreign aircraft for the transport of top officials. Recall that in 2010 the Arctic Ocean, "Russia" has bought two business jet Falcon 7X and the production of the French company Dassault.

The representative of the European consortium Airbus declined to comment on. But some industry sources confirm the fact of signing the contract and delivery of aircraft. Both sides are ordered in VIP-configuration.Mentioned in the tender documents helicopters are likely to be AW139. Information that the Arctic Ocean, "Russia" can buy these machines appeared in the middle of last year. As is known, AW139 will collect in Russia at the joint venture HeliVert, organized by the Corporation Oboronprom and the Italian company AgustaWestland.

Assembly plant of this model was built in the suburban Tomilino in 2010, representative of "Helicopters of Russia confirmed that the plant construction is on schedule and the first cars will gather this year, but said that referred to the two helicopters to the Arctic Ocean," Russia " SP has nothing to do.

In addition, in the tender documents stated that this year the Arctic Ocean, "Russia" is planning to buy a TU-214 (January), one IL-96 (July) and 4 of the Mi-8MTV (October). As available on www.zakupki.gov.ru other tender documents - the choice of insurer Sun Arctic Ocean, "Russia", ended in December 2010, indicates the sum insured on the aircraft hull insurance for certain acquired by Sun, which, according to a representative of insurance companies, in this case coincides with the value of their purchase. Thus, IL-96-300 is priced at 1,979 million rubles. Russian helicopters are estimated at 376 million rubles and imports - to 516 million rubles.

At the end of 2010, the presidential fleet flying squadron consisted of 46 AC: 4 IL-96-300, 5 IL-62, 6 Tu-214, 6 Tu-154, 5 Tu-134A, 2 IL-18, 4 Yak-40 , 12 Mi-8 helicopters of various modifications and two aircraft Falcon 7X.

Rather then ordering 2 Airbus A-319 , they would be be better off ordering the new Tu-204SM. See no merit in ordering A-319 for State Officials.

With the new PS-90A3 engine the Tu-204SM would get the same engine reliability as PS-90A2 without the need to use american sourced component.

GarryB wrote:I am sorry but that is nonsense. Every civilian aircraft purchase during the cold war had political implications and decisions made had little to do with aircraft performance.

It had political infulence to some extent but it had great economic infulence as well , government can take a political decision and ignore economic implications but not the private airlines who vouch for "bottom line" and would like to make profit.

Otherwise there would be no need for Airbus AND Boeing. They both make the same aircraft for different markets. If the markets ignored politics then one or the other company would win and the other would die.
The reality is that Boeing and Airbus mostly survived on enormous military subsidies from their own governments.

Airbus and Boeing company belong to different nations and continents and they vigorously compete against each other , Airbus turned out to be niche better than Boeing as they could make more fuel effecient and low down time aircraft.

Airbus subsidy would probably fade in comparision to what Boeing gets from US Government not to mention unfair trade practices that US Congress/Senate follows for eg recently Airbus won a big order for its A-330 against Boeing in fair competition but due to pressure from Boeing and its lobby with Senators/Congress and Government the order was canceled , so much for fair competition and fair practices that US preaches around.

Fuel price was nothing if your spare parts supplier was Boeing and you happened to be Iranian airlines. Politics came first... if you looked East you bought east and the same for west. After that came the quality of the hookers and bribes supplied by the competing companies (Airbus and Boeing). A distant third was the quality of the aircraft. As long as it could do the job the official that made the decision to buy couldn't care less about fuel efficiency... he already bought a yacht with the money he was bribed with and it never moves from the pier because he gets sea sick.

Fuel prices does matter if you operate an aircraft for 25 years which is their designed life , the fuel prices rises exponentially during those decades of operation and then if you operate a fleet of 50 -100 aircraft you can judge for your self the losses will be in billions of dollars.

Infact MS-21 main claim to fame is its 15 % more fuel effecient against Airbus A-320/21 and Boeing 737-NG.

Second most important factor is mean time between failure ,which means for x amout of hours you operate you will experience failure y amount of time , leading to aircraft going in maintenance and spares replacement leading to lesser fleet being available for business and more money spent on spares.

Like the report i have posted for An-148 which experince down time some 400 hours compared to 3000 hours for airbus.

And even today the F-15, pride of the USAF has wing problems, what is your point?

Today after being starved of money for 20 years a Ukrainian design has a few reliability issues... I would expect all Soviet aircraft to be grounded by now if you were right, yet there are lots of old aircraft flying and making profits... how can that be?

Well it did lost a lot of market , check for your self how even state carriers like Aeroflot have added a huge amount of western aircraft and big orders pending with Boeing and Airbus , most private airline players operate only Western Type.

Infact the Russians have all but moved their their new aircraft development to International/Western Certification Standards in reliability , fuel efficiency and technology a good example will be Superjet and MS-21 , look how they have been developed to match or exceed Airbus/Boeing/Bombardier/Embrarer and yet remain cheaper compared to all in its class.

An-148/158 is something of Russian/Ukranian attempt to make a cheaper yet good aircraft for countries that may not be able to afford western or russian types build to western standards.

BTW I think you will find that Boeing 737s and Airbuses had a few reliability issues during their first few years of service, this is just part of the process of getting a plane into service. You are comparing a new aircraft to mature designs. Very unfair.

I may sound unfair but the world is not sparing either , so it better to beat the best in their game and remain cost competitive , no one will wait for Russia to catch up with them but Russia has to prove it can come up much better after falling down and can beat the best.

I think Superjet and MS-21 is designed to do exactly that beat the best and remain cost competitive.

It would take Russia civil airlines about 2-3 decade to capture a good size of market but the process has started.

On the contrary for Sukhoi or Mig its not as great a challenge they are doing quite well globally specially Sukhoi.

And your passengers freeze to death because western aircraft don't have cloak rooms for heavy coats on their aircraft so the walk to the terminal in -30 degree temperatures is really fun.

I am not sure if this is a big issue , check for Western types operated by Russian airlines and they seems to be mostly western types and doing well in Russian climatic conditions.

Like I said Western aircraft are designed for well equipped airfields and there aren't that many if you look at the whole world and not just the west.

I think most airfields where there is decent air traffic have basic or better facilities to operate Western types , its only for non-profitable routes or remote routes the infrastructure is not well developed and there where An-148 can fill the niche.

Who is talking about small components?

Well these are key components and not small either ,Big and proven names in the field like Honeywell , Snecma or Goodrich adds value to the reliability factor.

On December 27, 2007 Boeing and VSMPO-Avisma created a joint venture Ural Boeing Manufacturing and signed a contract on titanium products deliveries until 2015, with Boeing planning to invest $27 billion in Russia over the next 30 years.

Not Titanium ingots or just Titanium, but Titanium products.

They did that but again reliability and quality was not upto western standards

Who cares about western standards? Not everything needs to be gold plated.
These are transport planes for people and cargo, not luxury hotels.

Well most would care of International Standards like ICAO ETOPS , JAR,FAA etc Sukhoi went out of the way to certify their jets to European ESA standards and similarly Perm improved reliability by opting for P&W sources hot components to make PS-90A2 meets ETOPS standards and Western/Russian/US requirements.

I would like to see the Russians set their own standards that are different to western standards that western planes have jump through hoops to meet, and then the Russians can talk about western aircraft being upgraded to meet Russian standards and they can be all snotty and upper class like the western aholes that seem to have influenced your attitude so much.

Russians have their standards and these generally closely match similar Western or US standards for eg Engine certification standards like AP-33 of Russia is similar to American FAR-33 and European JAR-33 , all Western aircraft that operate in Russia has to meet Russian Aviation standards.

Similarly any aircraft that operate in West needs to meet some basic standards in Noise or opt for top class standards like Sukhoi Superjet went for European EASA certifications after meeting all Russian certification standards so that its product can compete in the West and in the World with Western types

If you want cheap tickets... and 99% of passengers do, then improving "quality" is counter productive.

Well we need top notch Quality and Safety standards , cheap tickets or low cost carrier compromise on comfort where instead of 2 seats they would squeeze in 3 or instead of carrying 30 Kg of luggage for business class they would just provide 15 Kg for the cheap ticket and they wont provide any inflight food etc.

Ultimately both the Business class , First Class and Economy Class or Low fare tickets travel on the same airplane with different configuration ,cant compromise on build quality or safety standards of aircraft

Rather then ordering 2 Airbus A-319 , they would be be better off ordering the new Tu-204SM. See no merit in ordering A-319 for State Officials.

And also why order foreign helos?

This is ridiculous... how can they expect Russian airlines to support Russian industry if they don't?

It is not like Russia is actually a member of the WTO and has to be fair about this... they need to change the tender process... where a Russian domestic producer is available then they should be the preferred source unless a foreign product is significantly better and then the Russian producer should licence produce the superior product.
Especially in areas where there is only one vendor like Tanks.

It had political infulence to some extent but it had great economic infulence as well , government can take a political decision and ignore economic implications but not the private airlines who vouch for "bottom line" and would like to make profit.

I rather doubt American airlines would buy Il-96 aircraft. Even commercial companies have to fight public ignorance and stereotypes created by their government, media, and entertainment industry.

Airbus and Boeing company belong to different nations and continents and they vigorously compete against each other , Airbus turned out to be niche better than Boeing as they could make more fuel effecient and low down time aircraft.

So if commercial airlines only buy the cheapest most efficient aircraft why are there so many Boeings? Both Airbus and Boeing are guilty of receiving government subsidies... look it up both have been fined on several occasions and that is just for those times they got caught. There is a world wide Signit system called Echelon that the US uses to listen to electronic communications around the world 24/7. The data is all collected and sent to the US for processing and this information is passed on to large US companies in monthly meetings where information that is relevant to them to give them a competitive edge is passed to them. A competitive bid for selling aircraft is a secret document and all other bidders would give their eye teeth to know their opponents bids so they can bid better. Hearing what the opposition is offering for a bribe and who they are bribing is also useful information too. Airbus is not privy to Echelon information but Boeing is.

And you think it is fuel burn rate that helps airlines decide which aircraft to buy...

Airbus subsidy would probably fade in comparision to what Boeing gets from US Government not to mention unfair trade practices that US Congress/Senate follows for eg recently Airbus won a big order for its A-330 against Boeing in fair competition but due to pressure from Boeing and its lobby with Senators/Congress and Government the order was canceled , so much for fair competition and fair practices that US preaches around.

But surely the aircraft with the lowest operational costs and best engines will win...

Fuel prices does matter if you operate an aircraft for 25 years which is their designed life , the fuel prices rises exponentially during those decades of operation and then if you operate a fleet of 50 -100 aircraft you can judge for your self the losses will be in billions of dollars.

They certainly do matter, but other problems like empty seats or unfair competition driving fares down matter rather more. The extra cost is something you deal with as a company after the purchase and would really only come into it if the difference was enormous and it very rarely is unless you are comparing a DC-3 with an A320.

Infact MS-21 main claim to fame is its 15 % more fuel effecient against Airbus A-320/21 and Boeing 737-NG.

So there should be tens of thousands of orders... western companies will be climbing over each other to buy some? Or will it just make the traditional buyers of Russian civilian aircraft more competitive?

Second most important factor is mean time between failure ,which means for x amout of hours you operate you will experience failure y amount of time , leading to aircraft going in maintenance and spares replacement leading to lesser fleet being available for business and more money spent on spares.

Down time will rapidly improve for a new aircraft, but for mature designs will not change much at all.

Well it did lost a lot of market , check for your self how even state carriers like Aeroflot have added a huge amount of western aircraft and big orders pending with Boeing and Airbus , most private airline players operate only Western Type.

Because the old Soviet/Russian types stopped production and the new types had not subsidy support and were not ready for mass production.

Even if they were super jets in every sense they represent risk and risk in any business is normally bad and to be avoided where possible. Faced with the choice of getting stuck with an aircraft whose factory goes under or a mature tested design already widely in service around the world I really don't think it had much to do with performance or quality.

look how they have been developed to match or exceed Airbus/Boeing/Bombardier/Embrarer and yet remain cheaper compared to all in its class.

And look how there are so many in service... they need the government orders and government support to get them into production and into the air... if the Russian government doesn't want them then nobody will buy them.

An-148/158 is something of Russian/Ukranian attempt to make a cheaper yet good aircraft for countries that may not be able to afford western or russian types build to western standards.

Actually more accurately a joint venture between Russia, Ukraine and Iran... and at the end of the day it is actually an An-72 with the engines in a lower position to make maintainence on them easier and cheaper at the cost of STOL performance.

A neat little plane, but a Soviet inefficient poor fuel efficiency design at the end of the day... the An-72 even uses the same engines as the An-148.

I may sound unfair but the world is not sparing either , so it better to beat the best in their game and remain cost competitive , no one will wait for Russia to catch up with them but Russia has to prove it can come up much better after falling down and can beat the best.

Expecting a new design to have the same reliability as a mature design is unrealistic. I realise the world is not fair, but trashing a new product because you found some unanticipated faults and then comparing it with designs that have been through the complete design process and have been in service for some time is pointless. If you want to compare the first 3 years of service of the new design with the first 3 years of service with a contemporary design that might result in useful data but comparing reliability of a brand new piece of technology with a mature in service one is pointless... worse it is inflammatory and suggests someone has an agenda to criticise the new technology for some reason.

I think Superjet and MS-21 is designed to do exactly that beat the best and remain cost competitive.

Even if they used 50% less fuel the majority of airlines would still not buy them for the various reasons I have mentioned.

It would take Russia civil airlines about 2-3 decade to capture a good size of market but the process has started.

I agree, but as I have said... without Russian government support it is for nothing. Government purchases of "airliners" is a major source of direct subsidy for Boeing and Airbus that help them remain competitive to the point where a juicy contract like several hundred tanker aircraft in the US is worth all sorts of dirty tricks over from both companies... I very much doubt the airforce will get the best aircraft for the job, but they will get an aircraft.

I am not sure if this is a big issue , check for Western types operated by Russian airlines and they seems to be mostly western types and doing well in Russian climatic conditions.

I think you will find that the older Soviet types in service will be operating from the more austere airports and to accommodate the new shiny western aircraft most of the other airfields have had to spend money on upgrades to deal with their shortcomings.
The cost of the airfield upgrades are ignored by the airlines because it is not their problem.

I think most airfields where there is decent air traffic have basic or better facilities to operate Western types , its only for non-profitable routes or remote routes the infrastructure is not well developed and there where An-148 can fill the niche.

So people who can't afford big expensive terminal buildings and walkways that connect to aircraft don't need to fly?

Russians have their standards and these generally closely match similar Western or US standards for eg Engine certification standards like AP-33 of Russia is similar to American FAR-33 and European JAR-33 , all Western aircraft that operate in Russia has to meet Russian Aviation standards.

WTF? So these super dooper all powerful wonderful western standards are "not much different from Russian standards"????

So what is all this crap about Russian stuff not meeting western standards then?

A few Euro faggots don't like noisy planes at their airports and you make it sound like European standards will make Russian planes safe and reliable!!!!

Ultimately both the Business class , First Class and Economy Class or Low fare tickets travel on the same airplane with different configuration ,cant compromise on build quality or safety standards of aircraft

Yes, I understand that, but most of the people I know that fly anywhere do so because they got cheap tickets. Cheap tickets are often the result of empty aircraft travelling in one direction where the airline is trying to recover operational costs by getting bums on seats.

In other words you have a full aircraft bringing soccer fans to a city to go see a game... that aircraft drops people off, gets refuelled and restocked and cleaned and then is ready to take off 4 hours later except the people who booked their tickets for a round trip are flying on a different aircraft back 14 hours later because most have booked with a group that includes a night in a hotel and a flight back the next day so they can celebrate. The airline however needs that aircraft flying to generate revenue but there aren't that many people in that city that want to go to where the soccer fans just arrived from so it flys there with only 1/3rd of its seats booked so they offer cheap last minute seats and get a bit more money for the flight to cover costs.

The point is that fuel efficiency is only a small part of running an efficient airline and that ensuring all your seats are booked with flexible ticket prices will give you more profit than a slightly more fuel efficient plane with half empty seats most of the time.

A national airline has to offer air services to most of its population, which means inefficient low profit runs as well as high traffic high profit runs. Any competition can cherry pick and just fly the money making runs and put huge pressure on the national airline. The best way to fight this is to do the same in other countries.

Medvedev has dismissed the head of UAC for its lack of innovation

President Dmitry Medvedev promised to disciplinary action by managers of state companies, where the slack took up developing their own innovative activities. First hit the head of the United Aircraft Corporation Alexei Fedorov.

Yesterday at Arzamas President held a regular meeting of the Commission on the Modernization and Technological Development of the Russian economy, which appreciated - and came to a sad conclusion - the interim contribution to public companies in the difficult work of innovative lifting the country.

A look at state-owned companies fell immediately, as soon as the question arose of how to stimulate innovation development in Russia. It was agreed that a large public sector in the economy should be used for the benefit of technological breakthroughs. So a year ago saw the light of orders of the president, that large state-owned companies are required to develop innovative programs and to adjust for these purposes investment plans.

Not all of this year was enough. "I can not say that there is nothing done, but I can tell immediately and directly - they are poorly performed by state companies," - came to a conclusion yesterday, Dmitry Medvedev. Few people really reacted to the innovations and virtually none in the management of state-owned companies do not see people specifically responsible for this topic.

Last summer, the Government has identified a list of 22 state companies which were to develop their innovative plans. "All are in various stages" - recognized Economic Development Minister Elvira Nabiullina. For example, in RZD and RusHydro - a high degree of readiness. But the list is hopelessly lagging behind the president made a "Rosneft", "SCF", "Aeroflot" and "IDC Holding".

- Colleagues, this is no good, so I would like you to hear my words now. And secondly, that they not only were heard, I am instructing the Presidential Administration and the Government to prepare a proposal for disciplinary action up to dismissal of the head of large state-owned companies for this work. Period - two weeks - said the president. - A number of decisions on state structures I have already taken, they will be released shortly.

First to bear down for innovative inactivity dropped the United Aircraft Corporation, whose president Alexey Fedorov was released from his post. His place will be first vice president of KLA Mikhail Pogosyan.

State-owned company, recalled the head of state, had become an example to the entire Russian market innovation. "Investing is and money on these investments are, and virtually no innovation - said Medvedev. - High-tech products that can compete in world markets, very little."

With companies active in the innovative direction cover investment in development work, forgetting about the research. From this president has concluded that the industry continues to introduce harvesting the past.

Nabiullina said that innovation in state-owned companies mainly based on the budget. In 2010 - 69 percent in 2011, laid down 61 percent.

- And if we stop their fund, what will happen? - Asked the head of state, apparently wondering in his mind, and other methods of influence, but after the response to the Minister, is likely to change his mind.

- Less than half of companies will come to the average level in comparison with foreign companies, others will be at the level of the minimum and below the minimum - recognized Nabiullina.

Even worse, everything is patenting activity.

- We have companies who have no patents - has nothing surprised to find Medvedev in the materials.

- No, not planned - and quietly remarked to a Minister Nabiullina.

- Apparently, there is nothing they are going to protect them - assumed the head of state.

Compared with the patent abroad, were not in favor of the Russian state-owned companies. Together they drew up in 2010, thousands of domestic patents. And Microsoft - 5000.

With international patents of Russian companies and simply fail. All patents, issued last year, you can count on the fingers of one hand - exactly five. "And then we get offended when we find our designs from our competitors" - irony said Medvedev.

And yet Nabiullina found several circumstances in which she tried to soften the impact on the state-owned companies. First, she hinted that there is no clear definition that the state wants to implement innovative programs. The second problem - there is no complete assessment of the technological level of companies. Thirdly, there is no professional management systems of innovation. Fourthly, there are difficulties with the definition of breakthrough innovative directions. Finally, there is no experience to attract the interest of large companies of small innovative businesses.

Since the retreat on the innovative direction of the president is not going to state companies given the chance. Medvedev supported the proposal of Ministry of Economic Development to the most prepared, such as Rosatom, Russian Technologies, Rosneft, Transneft, RusHydro, the Federal Grid Company, "Power Systems East," Almaz-Antey, a corporation, "Tactical Missile weapons, innovative programs have until April 1. The rest must do so no later than mid July.

- All you need to do - has warned the head of state. - The responsibility is with the government and state representatives on boards of directors in their personal capacity. They must vote, and the company - to do so.

Vladimir Kuzmin

An-148: operator’s verdict

Tu-204SM in new color



http://www.tupolev.ru/Russian/Show.asp?SectionID=35

AN-148: Help and Future Prospects

Rosaviatsia reported that the issue of suspension of operation of the AN-148 could be considered after ascertaining the causes of the crash in the Voronezh region

STC Russia has no plans to suspend flights of An-148 in connection with the crash in the Belgorod region, "Interfax" the press service of the airline. "Stopping flights are planned, the aircraft have been successfully operated with the airline. All planes are routine maintenance and are displayed on the flight in good condition" - said the spokesman. In addition, he noted that the test aircraft in Voronezh Aircraft Joint Stock Company "took place in the regimes that do not apply for commercial exploitation. Currently the airline operates six aircraft of this type.

Earlier Rosaviatsia reported that the issue of suspension of operation of the AN-148 could be considered after ascertaining the causes of the crash. According to the representative office, Rosaviatsia asked the Department of Industry and Trade of the aviation industry to provide advice on safety AN-148 aircraft, operating in civil aviation.

AN-148 - short-haul passenger aircraft, designed to carry 70-90 people. Maximum range - 5 thousand km. At the moment, these aircraft are operated only in the STC "Russia". In the Russian planes are made on the Voronezh Aircraft Joint Stock Company (VASO). The aircraft is also commercially produced in Ukraine, including in particular, to the park Aerosvit.

In September last year, was made public presentation of STC "Russia", which asserted that the operational reliability of the AN-148 can not provide an adequate level of safety and regularity. In the period from June 1 to September 1, 2010 the total duration for the first four aircraft, taking into account the airport train crews, was 1 725 thousand hours. During this time, it was found 235 problems. What has the total idle time for troubleshooting, taking into account the expectations of the delivery of parts was 2 thousand 139 hours, or 89 days.

Unreliable systems

According to the presentation, the most unreliable system in an airplane is the aircraft control system - was discovered in 1931 the fault. Also to be unreliable include: system integration obschesamoletnogo equipment - 26, flight control and navigation equipment -19, -17 means of flight controls, auxiliary power unit (APU) - 17 faults, and the air carrier has and comments on the reliability of air conditioning systems, fuselage, wings and engine .

Powered aircraft in the presentation highlighted a separate item. "During the period from June 1 to September 1, 2010 excluded from the operation of an engine D-436-148 and two APU AI-450. C N plane from 61,702 two APU for various reasons, internal damage" - the document says.

Airline failure compared to MAT-148 with defects similar setup on the aircraft Boeing-737. In the five years of operation, Boeing-737 due to similar failures have been replaced with just two APUs. "Fly on an airplane AN-148 in 2 times less fault to 3 times more," - said in a document comparing the two aircraft.

Compares the regularity of the An-148 planes of western production, which operates the STC "Russia". Thus, when a raid 1 thousand 725 hours was delayed by 76 flights of faults at the same time, the Boeing-737 - 14, Boeing-767 - 16, A-320 - 25 and A-319 - 43 delays.

In addition, the airline compared the volume of work involved in aircraft maintenance. Thus, the volume of work Boeing-737 is 47.2 persons per hour, while the AN-148 is sostavlyaet191, 01 persons per hour, instead of the declared 50 people per hour.

Flights to Europe

IOSA audit showed the unwillingness of the aircraft for flights to Europe. "In an observation flight inspector revealed the expected observations, such as a broken in-flight cockpit door lock and output indicators for the pilots unnecessary at this stage of flight information," - the document says.

Were revealed various inconsistencies ICAO, such as poor quality of painting aircraft, an unforeseen opportunity to install the sensor decision height at the altimeter, breakage of rubber seals of mechanization on the bottom of the wing, etc.

Solve problems

To solve the problem of aircraft operation STC "Russia offers to create a normal system after-sale service aircraft. In particular, it proposes the creation of spare parts warehouse in St. Petersburg by and at the expense of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), or public financing of the budget in 2011, creating around the clock counseling center on the basis of aircraft manufacturers. And most importantly, we need compensation costs for commissioning of the AN-148.

The position of the supplier

"I will refrain from commenting on this presentation, as I have it in stock there," - told Interfax press secretary leasing company Ilyushin Finance. " Andrei Lipovetsky.

However, he noted that the AN-148 - a new machine that has been implemented into production on the Russian airline. The practice of global manufacturers shows that at the initial stage of operation of new equipment are identified so-called "childhood diseases". Through it passed all the global manufacturers, including Boeing and Airbus. "In the operation of all the observations airlines eliminated - we hope that the manufacturer will make every effort to eliminate all observations", - A. Lipovetsky.

He also recalled that the plane today is in great demand both in Russia and abroad - and now the demand for the An-148 exceeds the supply.

As previously reported, the corporation Irkut "(IRKT) plans with the AN-148 in the period from 2010 to 2028, he won 10% of the total market of aircraft with a capacity of 61-99 seats and deliver 390 aircraft. Thus, the governmental customer of the Russian Federation plans to deliver 40 aircraft this period, the commercial supplies of Russia and the CIS - 130, in Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia, -120, India - 40 and "rogue countries" (under the sanctions) - 60 aircraft. With the conquest of the market the first 50 planes will be sold at a price of $ 22-23 million per ship, while retaining the market price will be $ 23-24 million at the present moment there are only 8 firm orders for the AN-148.

In the same place September, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited the Voronezh Aircraft Plant, where the plant CEO Vitaly Zubarev told how mastering the means to implement the joint Russian-Ukrainian program for the production of AN-148 and to ensure that these courts of special flying squad STC "Russia" . This group is known, provides flights senior government officials, including President of the Russian Federation. Medvedev was interested in the construction of two vessels for the STC "Russia". As stated the general director of the plant, the project stalled somewhat due to the delay of funding. The President promised to provide the necessary guidance to resolve this issue. According to Zubarev, currently most of the details of the construction of aircraft (77%) produced in Russia.

Medvedev inspected the cockpit and cabin of the next, the sixth plane, which is being built for the STC "Russia" and wondered who makes the engines for him. As explained by Zubarev, engines are produced at Ukrainian enterprises, but parallel work is underway to link the design of aircraft An-148 other engines, including engines of a joint Russian-French company Snecma, which provides today the beginning of operation of the aircraft Superjet 100. "As noted by Zubarev, plant expects to disclose the contract for a further nine aircraft to the STC "Russia". In addition, he said then, two similar aircraft with English-language version and operational documentation factory plans this year to transfer to Myanmar. Another plane was built for the airline flight, which operates direct flights from Moscow to Voronezh, and serves the regions of Russia.

Some near and long term plans for Russian Civil Aviation

Part-1
Part-2
Part-3

Judge: Civil aviation in Russia is in poor condition

Russia should create a national leasing company and a joint venture with foreign production of aircraft engines to overcome the underdevelopment of domestic civil aviation industry on the level of its main competitors. This opinion was expressed Rosbalt Chief Flight Test Center of the State Institute of Civil Aviation, Hero of Russia Ruben Yesayan.

"Civil aviation in Russia is in a sorry state, not reaching any comparison with the position of foreign manufacturers of civil aircraft. By the way, Airbus produces 36 aircraft per month, and Russia over the past year has released only seven of them "- he said.

At the same time, continued the expert, "if our planes do normally," the flight and technical characteristics they are generally not inferior to foreign analogues, and the price even win (for example, a new Tu-204, according to Yesayan, worth about 30 million U.S. dollars, while a similar model Airbus - 47-50 million U.S. dollars).

But Russia has irreversibly fallen behind the West in engine, he says. "In the 20 years since the beginning of production engines PS-90 (manufactured by Perm Motor Plant - Ed.) Does not add any new engine," - said the expert.

Overcome the lag in the production of engines on its own, Russia has not come out, said head of the facility. "That's why we only buy foreign technology, or involve in Russia of foreign manufacturers of aircraft engines with the requirements of a gradual increase in the level of localization of production, as is done in the Russian automobile industry", - he said.

In addition, to support the aviation industry, according to Yesayan, we need a national leasing company that would have bought domestic planes and on favorable terms provided to them on lease to airlines. "Airlines around the world, except perhaps the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, as a rule, can not afford bulk purchases of aircraft, and take them on lease," - says the expert.

If they aren't buying new planes why should Russian makers develop new engines... who says they would buy them?

The Russian military needs to start ordering new aircraft that are not flashy fighters... I am talking about the expensive extras that 90% of NATO doesn't buy and the US brings with it.
The inflight refuelling aircraft, the jammer aircraft, the recon and elint aircraft, the AWACs aircraft.

The Russian military needs to look at all the aircraft it currently has and decide what areas it needs to expand and improve. If it had decent jammer and Elint aircraft plus recon aircraft with decent electronics and sensors it would have been in a much better position to fight in Georgia.
If the Tu-22MRs were up to date and modern not only would they not have lost one, its use would have revealed Georgias air defences and also located targets for aircraft to strike and for ballistic missiles to strike. (Iskander and Tochka).
If you look at the current Russian military aircraft inventory you see Mig-25s for recon, and Su-24s and Tu-22MRs for recon and jamming.
Replace the Mig-25s with something like the S-62 UAV, the Su-24s with a Su-34 based recon jammer, and upgrade the Tu-22MRs.
With inflight refuelling something like an Il-96 makes more sense than an Il-76. The Il-76 is a transport plane designed to operate from relatively rough air fields. The Il-96 is better suited to long flights with heavy loads of fuel and would be ideal for strategic aviation. For frontal aviation you need a smaller aircraft and the Tu-214 is in the 737 size range the west likes to use for such roles.
The Il-38 needs replacing, as does the Tu-142, and the Il-20 Elint aircraft.

I have said it before and I will say it again... revive the Il-106 program with those excellent engines and replace the An-22 with the result.
Build some new An-124s and Il-476s.

And stop buying foreign aircraft!

Russia is not in the WTO and has no current obligation to put French workers to work without a very good reason.

Judge: Civil aviation in Russia is in poor condition

Of course it is in poor condition because even the Russian government isn't buying Russian planes... why would anyone else?
If you start buying them then the effects of mass production kick in and new planes become cheaper and are made faster and work can begin on improving them and designing new replacements for things.