Russian Civil Aviation: News

flamming_python wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Everyone throws around the concept that the reason why sales are low is because the domestic variant is of lower quality, but the problem is, there really isn't much documentation stating that.  On paper, the quality of the Russian made goods is the same as any other brand, maybe with some few exceptions where avionics is indeed somewhat behind.  But my major thinking on this is that they move to a mixture of domestic and foreign is to have sales overseas with countries that are interested in purchasing a cheaper aircraft but have at least the sources for spare parts closer to home.  Problem with this thinking though, is what reality will show, that majority of sales are of domestic consumption in Russia, and not abroad, with maybe 50 or so jets abroad, while rest are at home.  As an example, the SSJ-100, they had problems with foreign suppliers, just like what people love to say about Russian domestic.  So if that is the case, then both are the same.  How would brake systems or landing gear from lets saying domestic Russian source, be much different than counterpart?  It appears that landing brakes and or braking systems on various other Russian jets seem to work, but somehow, it wouldn't for SSJ-100?  I am not denying that maybe foreign one is good.  But what about domestic?

There are lots of factors, but not much is said.  So technically, everything is ending up with pure speculation and as soon as one mentions what could be an issue, everyone goes haywire about it.  Some people are far too sensitive, and I am starting to think westerners are (especially when you question their industry).

Il-114 how many orders?
An-140 how many orders?
An-148/158 how many orders?
Tu-204/214 how many orders?
Il-96 how many orders?
An-38 how many orders?

Compare that to the interest generated by the SSJ and MS-21. Enough said.

TR1 wrote:Armenia returned them because they are broke.

They had some issues, and so did Aeroflot, but that is not at all unexpected for a new bird.

As far as international sales goes, be patient. The superjet is ALREADY a far bigger success than any previous Russian bird. Serial production has only ramped up, so there will be the potential to fulfill new orders within a fast time frame. They have work for years as is, so there is plenty of time to get new orders. Just 3 years ago the yearly production was 2 birds, 2012 was already 12 birds, and this year is going to be close to 20.

Modest? Yes.
Visible success compared to previous Russian civilian efforts? Absolutely.
Long live Pogosyan!

The Russian government has prepared a plan for the development of the aviation industry until 2015. For its implementation will require more than 250 billion rubles: 180 000 000 000 incorporated in the federal budget, even 70 billion is expected to attract extra-budgetary sources. In addition to direct production and subsequent certification of aircraft, aircraft engines and equipment, the plan provides for financial assistance to the industry. Most of the funds be redistributed between the large integrated structures, "United Aircraft Corporation" (UAC) and controlled by GK "Rostekhnadzor" corporations.

TR1 wrote:No, it is over 50% Russian.

The explicitly foreign sourced components are over 50% of the bird, but some of those components use Russian made parts. So if we look at it in terms of "what comes out of Russia" it is over 50% at least.

This is one of the biggest arguments against the SSJ, and it has been addressed by Russian aviation enthusiast pretty extensively.

Mind you that is more workload for Russia and income than from any previous civilian airliner, where supply lines were stretched out for years while they complete 2 airframes in 4 years.

An-148 is more "Russian" arguably than the Superjet, but between the numbers sold/built, from which plane is Russia benefiting most? Superjet of course. An-148 is needing MOD orders to stay alive. Some success.

GarryB wrote:The problem is not good marketing... an Australian airline would never consider a Russian aircraft... just like their government never considered Su-35s even though such an aircraft would have been ideal for them.

In lots of markets it is nothing to do with the product but the name on the side of the product that matters, but also the country behind the name as well. If you have good relations with the US like many countries do then you are most likely to select Boeing even if it is more expensive, look at C-17 sales... if the Il-476 had a cockpit made of solid gold it would still be cheaper than a C-17 and the five or six Il-476s you could buy for the price of one C-17 would be far more productive and useful than one C-17... yet C-17s are still purchased because it is really nothing to do with the aircraft at all and that is something Russia can't change.

What it has to do is accept it has lost its traditional market of the Warsaw Pact countries and focus on the non aligned countries first and pursuade them that their product will be better than an Airbus or Boeing in terms of support and relations that such purchases buy. It shouldn't be hard considering western diplomacy seems to consist of bombing those who dont do as they are told.

At the end of the day it will be Russian military purchases that subsidise the Russian civilian aircraft market just like the US and her allies military subsidise Boeing and French and Euro forces subsidise Airbus.

Once they build a base to grow from then they should be OK.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:In how many decades do you think that the Russian civil aircraft industry will be able to produce passenger jet engines competitive to the ones made by General Electric  and Pratt and Whitney?