Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Vladimir79 wrote:The Tu-204 line of aircraft is dead.
Not yet , BTW do you ever bring good news and have an optimistic outlook
+43
collegeboy16
Rmf
AbsoluteZero
Honesroc
Kyo
GarryB
TR1
kvs
sepheronx
Mike E
TheArmenian
George1
medo
Mindstorm
Morpheus Eberhardt
AlfaT8
Hannibal Barca
Werewolf
Austin
mutantsushi
xeno
magnumcromagnon
macedonian
mack8
ali.a.r
NationalRus
Cyberspec
Sujoy
Viktor
gaurav
Firebird
a89
flamming_python
KomissarBojanchev
Stealthflanker
SOC
Rpg type 7v
dimtra
Andy_Wiz
KRON1
Turk1
Vladislav
Admin
47 posters
Russian Civil Aviation: News
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Not yet , BTW do you ever bring good news and have an optimistic outlook
GarryB- Posts : 38919
Points : 39415
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Perhaps this is the UACs equivelent of "If we can't get it in Russia we will go foreign" threat.
If you don't buy our plane we can't justify the upgraded versions you are waiting for, so if you don't order the plane this is based on not only will you not get the future plane but lots of people will be unemployed and likely move to high tech western jobs working for Boeing or Airbus.
Hardly an idle threat as the centre for maintainence was set up n Moscow to maintain Boeings because Russian aerospace ability is equal to western ability but those Russian specialists work for less.
If you don't buy our plane we can't justify the upgraded versions you are waiting for, so if you don't order the plane this is based on not only will you not get the future plane but lots of people will be unemployed and likely move to high tech western jobs working for Boeing or Airbus.
Hardly an idle threat as the centre for maintainence was set up n Moscow to maintain Boeings because Russian aerospace ability is equal to western ability but those Russian specialists work for less.
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
Austin wrote:
Not yet , BTW do you ever bring good news and have an optimistic outlook
When I see it... Bulava for example. Government has to earn my faith now. The days of giving it freely are gone.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
GarryB wrote:Perhaps this is the UACs equivelent of "If we can't get it in Russia we will go foreign" threat.
If you don't buy our plane we can't justify the upgraded versions you are waiting for, so if you don't order the plane this is based on not only will you not get the future plane but lots of people will be unemployed and likely move to high tech western jobs working for Boeing or Airbus.
Hardly an idle threat as the centre for maintainence was set up n Moscow to maintain Boeings because Russian aerospace ability is equal to western ability but those Russian specialists work for less.
Working for Boeing or Airbus will not help in development of Russian Aerospace Industry specially the Civil Aviation.
UAC is right in that they need decent orders to improve its production and technology base , It is now up to the government to support programs like Tu-204 and IL-96 which are quite good platforms for Military and Special Purpose development.
For eg I propose that Tu-204 be further developed into new generation of ASW Aircraft Tu-204P and New ELINT/Government Transport Aircraft for Inter Russia Travel.
Tu-204SM will certainly win some small orders on its own merits.
IL-96-400 based aircraft should be developed as new generation Tankers/Aerial Refuellers , AWACS A-100 and replace old IL-86 based Air Borne Command post with new IL-96 based one.
Now IL-96 cost accoring to wiki is $50 million and the new IL-476 cost $100 million as per its factory , IL-96 is so much competitively priced and it offer better fuel efficiency , longer range and modern aerodynamics compared to its 20 years old design IL-76.
All in all I see good potential for IL-96 and Tu-204 if Russian Government supports its initially and there is always a replacement market for traditional Russian customers that it can target.
This way it can support the civil industry by subsiding its development and Militarily it gets a better aircraft.
GarryB- Posts : 38919
Points : 39415
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
In other words consider Vlads word as that of pessimist.
He will be right sometimes of course, but I think even he will be hoping he is wrong sometimes... like in this case.
For want of a better engine a good aircraft might fail...
Of course that is something that actually happens all the time in places like Britain, and of course Canada with the Avro Arrow.
He will be right sometimes of course, but I think even he will be hoping he is wrong sometimes... like in this case.
For want of a better engine a good aircraft might fail...
Of course that is something that actually happens all the time in places like Britain, and of course Canada with the Avro Arrow.
GarryB- Posts : 38919
Points : 39415
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I fully agree with you.
The problem is that when they start playing these games they stop thinking of reality.
Military officials saying they will buy foreign technology is fine, but you need to remember that a western military manufacturing company will charge more because they have to fund R&D themselves.
R&D is expensive because you are working with all the latest technologies in many fields. The problem is that you need good communication with your military to work out what they are doing and where they are going so you know what sort of things will be needed.
In the west there are organisations that work with new technology and try to adapt it to military purposes. DARPA springs to mind and a centre for that very thing. (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).
Without such an organisation you will get ten different companies all working on similar problems and coming up with solutions that are different and not interchangable. Ten R&D budgets spent on solutions when if you stepped back you could look at the solutions and say... these two are the best ideas... try working on these and the other 8 companies can use their money on different problems and when the two results are in you can evaluate them and decide which one everyone uses. It might become clear that one solution is best, or a combination of the two might be best. Either way less money and effort and time is wasted.
During the Soviet period because of secrecy there was a lot of wasted effort and money.
The reality is that the problem is not with UAC, the Tupolevs and Ilyusions are every bit as good as western equivelents... the problem right now is with engines. A bit of a funding boost and support for the engine makers to create either all new engines or to boost the performance of existing engines without American input and they would get sales. The thing is that a lot of countries around the world can't or wont buy American so it makes no sense trying to put American parts in Russian aircraft.
The problem is that when they start playing these games they stop thinking of reality.
Military officials saying they will buy foreign technology is fine, but you need to remember that a western military manufacturing company will charge more because they have to fund R&D themselves.
R&D is expensive because you are working with all the latest technologies in many fields. The problem is that you need good communication with your military to work out what they are doing and where they are going so you know what sort of things will be needed.
In the west there are organisations that work with new technology and try to adapt it to military purposes. DARPA springs to mind and a centre for that very thing. (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).
Without such an organisation you will get ten different companies all working on similar problems and coming up with solutions that are different and not interchangable. Ten R&D budgets spent on solutions when if you stepped back you could look at the solutions and say... these two are the best ideas... try working on these and the other 8 companies can use their money on different problems and when the two results are in you can evaluate them and decide which one everyone uses. It might become clear that one solution is best, or a combination of the two might be best. Either way less money and effort and time is wasted.
During the Soviet period because of secrecy there was a lot of wasted effort and money.
The reality is that the problem is not with UAC, the Tupolevs and Ilyusions are every bit as good as western equivelents... the problem right now is with engines. A bit of a funding boost and support for the engine makers to create either all new engines or to boost the performance of existing engines without American input and they would get sales. The thing is that a lot of countries around the world can't or wont buy American so it makes no sense trying to put American parts in Russian aircraft.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Vladimir79 wrote:When I see it... Bulava for example. Government has to earn my faith now. The days of giving it freely are gone.
Bulava is an example of systematic decay in some parts of Russian Defence industry , this decay has happened due to underfunding of enterprises over decades , lack of auditing of suppliers possibly to reduce cost.
There are too many things that went wrong with Bulava and no one single entity is responsible for it , its a systematic failure
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
GarryB wrote:For want of a better engine a good aircraft might fail...
Of course that is something that actually happens all the time in places like Britain, and of course Canada with the Avro Arrow.
Very True , Now the PS-90A2 is a engine jointly developed by US P&W and Russia and due to Iran sanction issue P&W refused to supply parts that power that engine leading to a body blow to Tu-204SM prospects to Iran. It was a deal for 5 aircraft with option to buy 25 more and license built it in Iran.
This would have been the biggest deal and now its the biggest loss for Russian Civil Aviation Industry , I really do not know why they cant co-operate with a more neutral country like France and build a decent engine rather then opt for US , they already did for Sam146 Engine built jointly with Snecma.
US too managed to kill the big deal for civil aviation and denied Iran a decent transport aircraft , they did this before when P&W Canada refused to supply engine after Russia-Georgia war and that led to delays in project.
Its really naive for Russia to depend on US for such project knowing well US would just sanction such things even post sales support will be affected if such sanctions come.
GarryB- Posts : 38919
Points : 39415
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I see Hilary Clinton has made a statement supporting Japanese claims to the Kuril Islands... Russia just needs to get the picture...
What ever the US says... just smile and nod and don't sign anything and just work with everyone else. The US is not the centre of the universe no matter what they believe and it just isn't worth dealing with them at any useful level.
The US is just used to using its economic power as a weapon so if you invest in the US expect to be used.
The secret is clearly to buy technology rather than use foreign parts so that you make the stuff yourself and can control who receives it and who doesn't. (Again the problem with buying the US stuff is that in actual fact if you read the agreement you are actually only leasing it... despite the high price... and they reserve the right to control who you can sell it to even when you don't want it any more. The cost of our Skyhawks in storage is several million a year and we had buyers but the US didn't approve... personally I think we should take them out to deep water and dump them in the sea... but I am sure some greenies will object to that too. ) :roll :
What ever the US says... just smile and nod and don't sign anything and just work with everyone else. The US is not the centre of the universe no matter what they believe and it just isn't worth dealing with them at any useful level.
The US is just used to using its economic power as a weapon so if you invest in the US expect to be used.
The secret is clearly to buy technology rather than use foreign parts so that you make the stuff yourself and can control who receives it and who doesn't. (Again the problem with buying the US stuff is that in actual fact if you read the agreement you are actually only leasing it... despite the high price... and they reserve the right to control who you can sell it to even when you don't want it any more. The cost of our Skyhawks in storage is several million a year and we had buyers but the US didn't approve... personally I think we should take them out to deep water and dump them in the sea... but I am sure some greenies will object to that too. ) :roll :
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Its US policy to off balance country and keep the pot hot , so I am not surprised they made that statement supporting Japan their allay.
The US would really love to see Russia in a low state of equilibrium and pin it down.
I just hope the Russian leader see the message read it right and develop better relations with European friends like France , Italy and German and just leave US to its state.
US is a dying superpower with imminent rise of China , India ,Russia and many other players , its high time Russia focusses on developing the technology and funds it well.
The problem of buying the technology is it can help short term but cant help in developing technology base or give data points and help in learning curve , for eg India has got the technology for Single Crystal Blade from AL-31FP but still in market for TOT to develop single crystal blade for Kaveri Engine.
The best way is to develop it yourself the second best way is to co-develop it.
The US would really love to see Russia in a low state of equilibrium and pin it down.
I just hope the Russian leader see the message read it right and develop better relations with European friends like France , Italy and German and just leave US to its state.
US is a dying superpower with imminent rise of China , India ,Russia and many other players , its high time Russia focusses on developing the technology and funds it well.
The problem of buying the technology is it can help short term but cant help in developing technology base or give data points and help in learning curve , for eg India has got the technology for Single Crystal Blade from AL-31FP but still in market for TOT to develop single crystal blade for Kaveri Engine.
The best way is to develop it yourself the second best way is to co-develop it.
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
The engine dependency is a part of it, but the biggest concern for the aircraft is the cost. At $40 million per aircraft, it just isn't competitive with Western models that offer more fuel efficiency and better avionics. Russian sales have always been based on low cost efficient solutions and Tu-204 is not it.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Vladimir79 wrote:The engine dependency is a part of it, but the biggest concern for the aircraft is the cost. At $40 million per aircraft, it just isn't competitive with Western models that offer more fuel efficiency and better avionics. Russian sales have always been based on low cost efficient solutions and Tu-204 is not it.
Vlad , thats not true
Check the Boeing Commercial Price list
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/index.html
Even a basic 737-600 cost any where between $51- $56 million and Airbus A320 cost $ 55 million.
At $40 million Tu-204 is much cheaper and its much bigger aircraft then B737/A-320 , its more in 757 class.
I think Engine is a big dependencies , plus lack of local market , plus lack of military support has been a nemesis of Tu-204 , technologically they can still get better and match western bird in price/efficiency/comfort but the other factor mentioned above is a killer.
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
GarryB wrote:In other words consider Vlads word as that of pessimist.
In other words, consider it the voice of experience. I lived it, seen it, worked in it and followed before there was such a thing as the WWW.
GarryB- Posts : 38919
Points : 39415
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The Russian MIC doesn't need all its organs removed and replaced.
It has been lying in bed for 20 years and has lost touch.
Some parts are so behind and the cost of getting them up to speed is comparable to the cost of a new component so in some cases buying new makes sense, but most of the body simply needs to start exercising.
And example would be in ammo... after reading about old obsolete ammo stores I am sure they could do with large orders for ammo for the various items they want. No point in buying new planes and upgrading older planes if you don't have the new ordinance to use with them.
In some cases the capacity was never there because some company in what is now a foreign country used to make it. A good example is jet trainer aircraft, but the Russian companies came up with two very viable alternatives for that.
Optics has traditionally been mainly from Belarus, but that can also change too.
The main problem is that some expect change overnight, that after lying in bed that suddenly the MIC will be able to leap up and run a full marathon, which is clearly unreasonable.
Right now the nuclear triad will protect Russia from major attack, while its military is being reorganised it appears to be in disarray, but the important stuff... the C4IR stuff is being worked on. The C4IR is the brain stem, brain, and central nervous system... so obviously it needs to be working. Once this is going then you need to build all the structures you need for a mobile army/navy/airforce, with all components working together.
You don't want to p!ss away money, but you do want to spend money where it is useful and the Tu-214SR is deemed useful. This means it makes sense to produce the aircraft it is based on... even if it means a government subsidy on the sly (Yeah like the US and Europe don't do it already for Boeing and Airbus respectively) then so be it.
Equally there were never plans to make 8,000 T-90s, they only ever planned to make about 1,500-2,000 of them. This means that for numbers they will need about 5,000 T-72s upgraded to a more T-90 compatible level (sharing components to a level where they are compatible and therefore cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate etc etc). This means the T-72 upgrades could start right now and keep the last tank maker working... 500 per year would be a good start.
Then when the C4IR system is ready... probably about 2012 they can finalise the upgrade for the T-90 and apply that to existing vehicles and make some new vehicles to take numbers up to the planned 1.5-2k.
This will get the tank plant working and reduce operational costs for the Russian army because the tanks they get will become more and more alike.
It should be accepted that an item that enters service needs to be upgraded as improvements become available. As such getting something in service is the first step and then the next step is to look at how it needs to be improved. There is no point making more T-90s till its upgrade has been finalised, but with the T-72 upgrade ready then there is equally no reason not to start putting it into production. A few extra vehicles could be upgraded and used for gifts to countries that already operate the T-72 but wouldn't be able to afford a T-90. This might help win a few upgrade contracts and improve relations that might lead to other trade.
Don't get me wrong Vlad, I respect your opinion and your cynicism, I agree that they seem to be well founded from your experience and history. Things that should happen often never do for many reasons.
I just like to see the glass as half full... in everything. It makes it easier to get out of bed in the morning.
Of course I am old enough that I should know better, but I am also old enough to know what leads to a smile all day and what leads to an ulcer.
If the Russian military don't order any tank upgrades or new tanks and by 2018 their tank industry collapses and they have to buy Chinese copies of the tanks they couldn't afford to make themselves then I will be disappointed, but politicians are good at disappointing people.
It has been lying in bed for 20 years and has lost touch.
Some parts are so behind and the cost of getting them up to speed is comparable to the cost of a new component so in some cases buying new makes sense, but most of the body simply needs to start exercising.
And example would be in ammo... after reading about old obsolete ammo stores I am sure they could do with large orders for ammo for the various items they want. No point in buying new planes and upgrading older planes if you don't have the new ordinance to use with them.
In some cases the capacity was never there because some company in what is now a foreign country used to make it. A good example is jet trainer aircraft, but the Russian companies came up with two very viable alternatives for that.
Optics has traditionally been mainly from Belarus, but that can also change too.
The main problem is that some expect change overnight, that after lying in bed that suddenly the MIC will be able to leap up and run a full marathon, which is clearly unreasonable.
Right now the nuclear triad will protect Russia from major attack, while its military is being reorganised it appears to be in disarray, but the important stuff... the C4IR stuff is being worked on. The C4IR is the brain stem, brain, and central nervous system... so obviously it needs to be working. Once this is going then you need to build all the structures you need for a mobile army/navy/airforce, with all components working together.
You don't want to p!ss away money, but you do want to spend money where it is useful and the Tu-214SR is deemed useful. This means it makes sense to produce the aircraft it is based on... even if it means a government subsidy on the sly (Yeah like the US and Europe don't do it already for Boeing and Airbus respectively) then so be it.
Equally there were never plans to make 8,000 T-90s, they only ever planned to make about 1,500-2,000 of them. This means that for numbers they will need about 5,000 T-72s upgraded to a more T-90 compatible level (sharing components to a level where they are compatible and therefore cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate etc etc). This means the T-72 upgrades could start right now and keep the last tank maker working... 500 per year would be a good start.
Then when the C4IR system is ready... probably about 2012 they can finalise the upgrade for the T-90 and apply that to existing vehicles and make some new vehicles to take numbers up to the planned 1.5-2k.
This will get the tank plant working and reduce operational costs for the Russian army because the tanks they get will become more and more alike.
It should be accepted that an item that enters service needs to be upgraded as improvements become available. As such getting something in service is the first step and then the next step is to look at how it needs to be improved. There is no point making more T-90s till its upgrade has been finalised, but with the T-72 upgrade ready then there is equally no reason not to start putting it into production. A few extra vehicles could be upgraded and used for gifts to countries that already operate the T-72 but wouldn't be able to afford a T-90. This might help win a few upgrade contracts and improve relations that might lead to other trade.
In other words, consider it the voice of experience. I lived it, seen it, worked in it and followed before there was such a thing as the WWW.
Don't get me wrong Vlad, I respect your opinion and your cynicism, I agree that they seem to be well founded from your experience and history. Things that should happen often never do for many reasons.
I just like to see the glass as half full... in everything. It makes it easier to get out of bed in the morning.
Of course I am old enough that I should know better, but I am also old enough to know what leads to a smile all day and what leads to an ulcer.
If the Russian military don't order any tank upgrades or new tanks and by 2018 their tank industry collapses and they have to buy Chinese copies of the tanks they couldn't afford to make themselves then I will be disappointed, but politicians are good at disappointing people.
GarryB- Posts : 38919
Points : 39415
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Aw come on... I have been in a 767 in economy class and I can tell you lots of words were going through my mind starting with c and comfort wasn't one of them...
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
It would really beat me and my senses if the next generation of AWACS , Tanker and Special aircraft is not based on IL-96-400 and Tu-204-300 variant over the new Il-476.
The IL-476 declared cost is $100 million , the Il-96 cost $50 - 60 million and Tu-204 cost $ 40 million.
Would beat me why cant you develop Tanker/AWACS based on IL-96-400M and Special Aircraft/ASW on Tu-204 just on cost grounds.
I would think these new gen aircraft will be better on other paramaters like fuel efficiency,range,maintenance.
The IL-476 declared cost is $100 million , the Il-96 cost $50 - 60 million and Tu-204 cost $ 40 million.
Would beat me why cant you develop Tanker/AWACS based on IL-96-400M and Special Aircraft/ASW on Tu-204 just on cost grounds.
I would think these new gen aircraft will be better on other paramaters like fuel efficiency,range,maintenance.
GarryB- Posts : 38919
Points : 39415
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The Il-76 was designed to carry heavy loads... it has engines that are rather too powerful and therefore also not so efficient for long range cruising.
The only reason it was used for the tanking role and the AWACs role was because it was able to carry enough weight to do the job.
The other AWACs aircraft used the Tu-95s basic design and engines for long range cruising performance (the Tu-126).
The Tu-214 AND the IL-96 are both far better platforms for tankers and AWACS aircraft because they are wide body aircraft designed for long cruising flights with relatively heavy loads.
The reality is that the Il-476 will be a good transport, but their new focus on mobility means they can't afford to have their tankers also being their transports. That works ok when you either transport ground forces OR you send in aircraft with tanker support.
Under their new doctrine they will need to do both so the idea of a tanker/transport... although a good one, becomes a bad one.
Personally I would like to see the Il-96 used as the A-100 AWACs aircraft and both the Il-96 and the Tu-214 as tanker aircraft.
Very simply the Tu-214 would be great for all the tactical aircraft like the Mig-29s and Su-27s and Su-35s and Stealth fighters, while the larger capacity of the Il-96 will make it better for the support of the Bears and Blackjacks that need rather more fuel per refuelling.
The only reason it was used for the tanking role and the AWACs role was because it was able to carry enough weight to do the job.
The other AWACs aircraft used the Tu-95s basic design and engines for long range cruising performance (the Tu-126).
The Tu-214 AND the IL-96 are both far better platforms for tankers and AWACS aircraft because they are wide body aircraft designed for long cruising flights with relatively heavy loads.
The reality is that the Il-476 will be a good transport, but their new focus on mobility means they can't afford to have their tankers also being their transports. That works ok when you either transport ground forces OR you send in aircraft with tanker support.
Under their new doctrine they will need to do both so the idea of a tanker/transport... although a good one, becomes a bad one.
Personally I would like to see the Il-96 used as the A-100 AWACs aircraft and both the Il-96 and the Tu-214 as tanker aircraft.
Very simply the Tu-214 would be great for all the tactical aircraft like the Mig-29s and Su-27s and Su-35s and Stealth fighters, while the larger capacity of the Il-96 will make it better for the support of the Bears and Blackjacks that need rather more fuel per refuelling.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Agreed Garry
I think a lot of this has to do with reputation in the market as much about capability ( much like you would buy a expensive Boeing 737 over Tu-204 because of reputation although the latter is cheaper and bigger ) , the IL-76 has gained the reputation of being a task master and can take hits and survive and do its job.
The proliferation of IL-76 also makes a better IL-76 a logical choice to keep maintainence,training to the minimum.
But if russia makes the move to IL-96 and Tu-204 , the others too would see a reason and logic would follow.
I think a lot of this has to do with reputation in the market as much about capability ( much like you would buy a expensive Boeing 737 over Tu-204 because of reputation although the latter is cheaper and bigger ) , the IL-76 has gained the reputation of being a task master and can take hits and survive and do its job.
The proliferation of IL-76 also makes a better IL-76 a logical choice to keep maintainence,training to the minimum.
But if russia makes the move to IL-96 and Tu-204 , the others too would see a reason and logic would follow.
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
Austin wrote:Vladimir79 wrote:The engine dependency is a part of it, but the biggest concern for the aircraft is the cost. At $40 million per aircraft, it just isn't competitive with Western models that offer more fuel efficiency and better avionics. Russian sales have always been based on low cost efficient solutions and Tu-204 is not it.
Vlad , thats not true
Check the Boeing Commercial Price list
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/index.html
Even a basic 737-600 cost any where between $51- $56 million and Airbus A320 cost $ 55 million.
At $40 million Tu-204 is much cheaper and its much bigger aircraft then B737/A-320 , its more in 757 class.
I think Engine is a big dependencies , plus lack of local market , plus lack of military support has been a nemesis of Tu-204 , technologically they can still get better and match western bird in price/efficiency/comfort but the other factor mentioned above is a killer.
Well then, the cost must have shot up to $50+ million. Reports say it costs as much as a 737 and A320. If airlines find it competitive it would get more orders.
Engine is not only dependency, it is money and work being done outside Russia.
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Tu-204SM makes discount
Maxim Pyadushkin
Maxim Pyadushkin
Long-haul planes Tu-204SM can get cheaper, provided a large order. developer of this machine, "Tupolev", said that after talks with state corporation Russian Technologies and equipment suppliers for the Tu-204SM, it was determined that the basic heading home purchase components may reduce cost of aircraft-set at 27 -30%.
Recall that the need to reduce the cost of the aircraft occurred in September, after the airline Atlant-Soyuz, which is placed through a leasing company Ilyushin Finance Co ". a firm order for 15 machines of this type, has notified the lessor, which may terminate the contract due to high prices and poor quality build the aircraft.
However, componen t suppliers have put forward a counter-condition: to provide a firm order for delivery through 2016, 44 SM of this type. As stated in the past this week, an international aviation forum "Wings of Russia" IFC CEO Alexander Rubtsov, such a contract is being discussed and could be signed before the end of the year.
Apparently, the customer will become a charter airline Red Wings, as previously stated its owner Alexander Lebedev. This airline has already staked solely on the Tu-204-100, now in its park 9 cars of this type.
According to Rubtsov, the first Tu-204SM is already preparing to start flight tests. "This aircraft is made by our terms of reference and we believe that it had eliminated all the shortcomings of the Tu-204-100" - the head of IFC.
Piece volumes increases the cost of the production cost of aircraft, making them uncompetitive compared to Western counterparts - both in price and quality. It is a vicious circle: the airlines do not want to place orders, and manufacturers can not reduce prices.
If a contract with the Red Wings would still be signed, the Ulyanovsk Aviastar-SP to meet until 2016, will produce about 7-8 Tu-204SM per year, not counting the other orders. Recall that the highest rate of production of Tu-204 was achieved in 2008 - 6 aircraft per year. And last year in Ulyanovsk collected only 5 cars in this family.
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
Austin wrote:Vladimir79 wrote:The Tu-204 line of aircraft is dead.
Not yet
Like I said... it is dead.
UAC said that the release program aircraft "Tu", which are made in Ulyanovsk, will be closed.
http://russiadefence.forumotion.com/russian-air-force-f3/an-124-news-t962.htm#5811
Austin- Posts : 7617
Points : 8014
Join date : 2010-05-08
Location : India
Vladimir79 wrote:Like I said... it is dead.
UAC said that the release program aircraft "Tu", which are made in Ulyanovsk, will be closed.
http://russiadefence.forumotion.com/russian-air-force-f3/an-124-news-t962.htm#5811
There are lot of contradictory news on this , So lets wait and see how things turn up.
If Red Wings signs for this deal the Tu line will keep running
GarryB- Posts : 38919
Points : 39415
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I suspect the UAC is airing its dirty laundry to try to get political help... lets hope the right people are listen and act.
GarryB- Posts : 38919
Points : 39415
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Which is why Russia should invest in engines and actually use the engines it has already developed that are very efficient engines already.
Right now it an ideal time to reactivate the Il-106 program... an aircraft like that with those sorts of engines with an 80 ton payload would be in the C-17 class but much cheaper to buy and operate and it will make the requirements for more Ukrainian planes like the An-124 and An-70 less urgent.
Right now it an ideal time to reactivate the Il-106 program... an aircraft like that with those sorts of engines with an 80 ton payload would be in the C-17 class but much cheaper to buy and operate and it will make the requirements for more Ukrainian planes like the An-124 and An-70 less urgent.
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
Who will save the Russian civil aviation industry?
Russian aviation industry will allocate a priority government program, has promised to Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who oversees the industry in the government. He admitted that the aircraft in Russia is in a critical condition.
Depreciation of production assets is 80%, while buyers of Russian aircraft in 2009, a thousand times complained about the quality of the product, said Sergei Ivanov said at a conference on the quality of aeronautical engineering.
It was about the military and civil aviation. But if the production of military aircraft Russia is not comparable to, and something superior to the West, in the civil aviation situation is not encouraging.
Estimated editor-Aviasojuz "Elijah Weisberg, over 80% of traffic on the Russian trunk routes in 2009, served by foreign brands, Boeing and Airbus.
"This trend is compounded every year, - says Weisberg. - A few years ago these figures were 50-60%. It is likely that for 2010 this figure will be, if not 90%, close to it."
Literally, in September, the aerospace concern, Boeing and Russian Technologies have signed a contract to buy 50 aircraft Boeing-737 Next Generation worth almost four billion dollars. It is possible to purchase another 35 aircraft.
The agreement was reached despite the fact that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has repeatedly called on Russian airlines focus more on domestic appliances.
However, some experts say that Russian airlines simply nothing to buy. Mid-range aircraft in Russia is practically not produced, as a promising short-haul aircraft Sukhoi Superjet will be available only at the end of the year.
"Flying a vacuum cleaner"
It is on the Sukhoi Superjet in Russia impose the task of raising the prestige of civil aviation. This is one of the most famous Russian aircraft development, which - on a plan of government - to press on the market from foreign competitors.
However, the project has many enemies, including among aviation experts.
Test pilot Alexander Akimenkov believes that Sukhoi Superjet is not adapted to the Russian reality: "He has a clearance, ie the distance from the engine to the ground, forty centimeters. It's a vacuum cleaner!" Which airfields in Russia are going to use this plane? "
Nevertheless, Aeroflot has already ordered 30 such aircraft. True, the manufacturer - the company "Sukhoi" - has already warned that in time - by December 2010 - can supply only two devices out of ten. Yes, and those two need to be refined.
Another was that the engine airliner with 114 kilograms heavier than planned. It also emerged that the plane was a two-thirds consists of imported components.
With the disapproval of experts speak about the project cost Superjet. According to Alexander Akimenkova, it spent 4.5 billion dollars.
"This is a replay backs technical culture of the West. The conversation should go about the breakthrough technologies of the future of our air, not of yesterday," - said the expert.
The main advantage
However, Elijah Weisberg in an interview with Russian Service BBC urged not to hang on the Sukhoi Superjet all dogs. He said that the delay in his appearance on the market is partly to blame for the subjective mistakes, but there is here and the objective circumstances.
The project, he said, is rather unusual for Russia, but to go on untrodden path is always challenging. In addition, there are delays in the projects of Western manufacturers - Boeing -787, with Airbus-350.
Russia has so far remained the main advantage - a clever young people, explains Leonid Sobolev, professor at the Moscow Aviation Institute.
According to him, the new generation of students has focused on less money than in the 90's. And so often goes to work in Russian companies: "They have already arranged with the third or fourth year. Many students work and Sukhoi, and the Ilyushin.
However, Sobolev recognizes that engineering centers, Boeing and Airbus in Moscow, too, is not empty.
Dmitry Bulin
Russian aviation industry will allocate a priority government program, has promised to Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who oversees the industry in the government. He admitted that the aircraft in Russia is in a critical condition.
Depreciation of production assets is 80%, while buyers of Russian aircraft in 2009, a thousand times complained about the quality of the product, said Sergei Ivanov said at a conference on the quality of aeronautical engineering.
It was about the military and civil aviation. But if the production of military aircraft Russia is not comparable to, and something superior to the West, in the civil aviation situation is not encouraging.
Estimated editor-Aviasojuz "Elijah Weisberg, over 80% of traffic on the Russian trunk routes in 2009, served by foreign brands, Boeing and Airbus.
"This trend is compounded every year, - says Weisberg. - A few years ago these figures were 50-60%. It is likely that for 2010 this figure will be, if not 90%, close to it."
Literally, in September, the aerospace concern, Boeing and Russian Technologies have signed a contract to buy 50 aircraft Boeing-737 Next Generation worth almost four billion dollars. It is possible to purchase another 35 aircraft.
The agreement was reached despite the fact that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has repeatedly called on Russian airlines focus more on domestic appliances.
However, some experts say that Russian airlines simply nothing to buy. Mid-range aircraft in Russia is practically not produced, as a promising short-haul aircraft Sukhoi Superjet will be available only at the end of the year.
"Flying a vacuum cleaner"
It is on the Sukhoi Superjet in Russia impose the task of raising the prestige of civil aviation. This is one of the most famous Russian aircraft development, which - on a plan of government - to press on the market from foreign competitors.
However, the project has many enemies, including among aviation experts.
Test pilot Alexander Akimenkov believes that Sukhoi Superjet is not adapted to the Russian reality: "He has a clearance, ie the distance from the engine to the ground, forty centimeters. It's a vacuum cleaner!" Which airfields in Russia are going to use this plane? "
Nevertheless, Aeroflot has already ordered 30 such aircraft. True, the manufacturer - the company "Sukhoi" - has already warned that in time - by December 2010 - can supply only two devices out of ten. Yes, and those two need to be refined.
Another was that the engine airliner with 114 kilograms heavier than planned. It also emerged that the plane was a two-thirds consists of imported components.
With the disapproval of experts speak about the project cost Superjet. According to Alexander Akimenkova, it spent 4.5 billion dollars.
"This is a replay backs technical culture of the West. The conversation should go about the breakthrough technologies of the future of our air, not of yesterday," - said the expert.
The main advantage
However, Elijah Weisberg in an interview with Russian Service BBC urged not to hang on the Sukhoi Superjet all dogs. He said that the delay in his appearance on the market is partly to blame for the subjective mistakes, but there is here and the objective circumstances.
The project, he said, is rather unusual for Russia, but to go on untrodden path is always challenging. In addition, there are delays in the projects of Western manufacturers - Boeing -787, with Airbus-350.
Russia has so far remained the main advantage - a clever young people, explains Leonid Sobolev, professor at the Moscow Aviation Institute.
According to him, the new generation of students has focused on less money than in the 90's. And so often goes to work in Russian companies: "They have already arranged with the third or fourth year. Many students work and Sukhoi, and the Ilyushin.
However, Sobolev recognizes that engineering centers, Boeing and Airbus in Moscow, too, is not empty.
Dmitry Bulin
|
|
|