There will be more than 4000 D-30 thanks IL-76 operations. There will be 1000 PS-90. and huge amount of PD-XX will come online in due course. Russian aviation sector is creating long term profitability starting from raw materials like Titanium to down stream Airline and chopper firms.
A330 sales are good for EADS & there suppliers but it does not mean it is good for EU as its sales to Middleasern airlines are killing EU airline industry. No one in EU can match Aeroflot/Volga Denpr profits despite using inefficient aircrafts in the portfolio. There will be no commercial competitor to IL-76/An-124 from China or West.

WOW You really do believe that don’t you JSR! For you the Russian aerospace is this massive powerhouse with all its il76, D-30 engines and PS-90!

Nobody in the EU can match Aeroflot/Volga Depnr profits!?!?

I hate to burst your bubble but the Aerospace industry of Canada is worth more then Russia’s as for the EU well its larger and worth more in exports then Russia, Canada, Brazil, Japan, India, China, South Africa and Australia combined. The only place that is worth more and produces more is America. 1000 possible PS-90 pffft:rolleyes: CFM produces over 1200 engines a year! Snecma and Rolls-Royce hold 40% of the global aero engine market alone! No commercial competitor to the IL-76/AN124…well that is debatable. Both those types are serving a niche out sized cargo market and the vast majority of cargo aircraft globally are airliner conversions of Western types.

I look at percentage component in each aviation product and its original source of IP. For example 70% of components of An-148/158 series will come from Russia. And 80% of An-124 at this point.
There is no way 70% of components of A330 will come from France or B787 coming from US at this point. Chinese export product has dubious component source.

Outsourcing is a normal component of aerospace production that has paid off well for the Western aerospace industry. Russian lack of parts availability due to lack of outsourcing has been detrimental to Russian sales and the new Superjet adopts the Western outsourcing model.

As I mentioned before only low tier stuff sells because they have been upgraded with foreign components and engines. Even J-7 has western components like radar. J-17 has western ejection seat.

CAC will fit as much or as little Western components as you want with the J-7, you can have perfectly decent Chinese radar, avionics and ejector seats if you want or pix and mix western stuff. The first batch of JF-17 had Chinese zero-zero ejector seats, Pakistan decided that later batches would have MB seats as per prior policy.

Where did you get the impression that I think they are not trying hard JSR?!:confused:

I am saying that export sales of helicopters, low tier fighters, trainers and you can throw in light transport types are solid. High tier fighter production appears to be earmarked for domestic force modernisation. As for when China stops buying J-10 and J-11…CAC and SAC are hardly going to close down. They will be deep into production of whatever types are chosen to replace the J-10 and J-11. Defence aerospace is a strategic industry for China so they are hardly going to let their main production facilities go down the pan.

You appear to be really eager to big up Russian production and some kind of soon to be seen collapse of the Chinese aerospace sector through lack of work. Considering China has had an aerospace sector in constant growth for the last twenty to thirty years and significant ongoing domestic military and civilian needs I don’t think they are in any threat of collapse!

Certainly Russia has had a modest income stream from maintenance and modernisation of types like the il76 and AN124 plus various fighter contracts over the years but is it fair to compare that to Chinas ongoing domestic aerospace growth? For that matter how does Russian domestic aerospace maintenance and modernisation sector compare to a Western nation like America? How many more iL76 and AN124 going to be produced in comparison to Airbus a330?

People need to be a bit more nuanced about this debate rather then use it as a game of web one-upmanship.

Can’t I blame Boeing just a little bit? 😉

Well I certainly think there are a few different factors for this decision by Airbus.

Firstly and to a degree crudely this is a degree of payback by Airbus over the KC45 cancellation. Boeing has moved heaven and earth over the years to buy out and remove all US based large aircraft competition. Airbus launching limited a320 production is entirely legitimate and helps further build local allies.
as well as do something that will pi$$ off Boeing.

Secondly a green field site for a320 production can be easily expanded in the future. This puts in place a seed-corn of trained US based manufacturing staff who can be moved onto other programs in the future, in particular KC-Y. One of Boeing and its fan chorus accusations against Airbus/EADS during KC-X was the lack of local experience and manufacturing facilities that were only a paper solution.

So its a win for US workers in that state and a foot through the door for Airbus.

The main fire-bombers in service with US firefighting contractors is the P-2 Neptune… converted ex-USN ASW patrol aircraft. The second-most-numerous are P-3 Orions (however, their main operator was not contracted for this season, and put their 8 P-3s up for sale this February).

Last month there was a fatal crash of a P-2 in the western US, and a non-fatal landing incident with a P-2 from another operator.

Both of these companies (Neptune Aviation and Minden Air) currently have BAe-146 converted to fire-bomber under final service evaluation by the US Forest Service. Minden Air has 1 under contract while Neptune has 3 under contract (2 of which will enter service next month).

Both companies plan to completely replace their P-2s with BAe-146s within 5 years (they actually plan to end up with more -146s than they have P-2s).

As for the Dash-8… Neptune acquired one in 2005 for conversion, intending to use that type to replace its P-2s… but since they are now fully-involved with the BAe-146 for that purpose, it seems the Dash-8 wasn’t what they wanted.

Indeed Badger1968 I forgot about the Bae-146 Firebomber conversion. What is very clear about US based Fire bomber contractors is they are only interested in used Western type that are cheap to procure and convert. The Bae-146 it a clever choice, it was designed for austere operations in Africa. Four engines increases safety if there is an in-flight failure. Jet engines offer a faster transit onto station yet its STOL design offer the low speed handling characteristics required by fire bomber (The Honeywell turbofans are also fairly frugal). Finally they are cheap in comparison to other aircraft on the used market.

Inducting the Be-200 would involve a significant investment for a private contractor, as it isn’t certified yet it is further hampered in market. Finally if a Western operator wants an amphibious type the Bombardier CL-415 is already available and certified for the region. Best chance for the Be-200 is European civil government operators who are looking to replace their older CL-215 and CL-415.

Wasn’t Bill Sweetman keen on a Naval Typhoon variant?

A pity her propulsion systems are still so smoky even after diesel conversion…

I find this part the most interesting. Is this the same system that is on the Kuzentsov or a new development?

Have Western carriers adopted this system to replace conventional ILS yet?

Main propulsion is still boiler and steam turbine based. The installation of six new Italian-made Wärtsilä 1.5 MW diesel generators is purely (and sensibly) to help support the hotel loads of her significant new system and electronics fit. It has the advantages of not having to run up her boilers if she is sitting somewhere in harbour or offshore if they need to run systems like the radars or even the lights. Interestingly the Charles de Gaulle had significant power provision hotel load issues from the nuclear steam plant earlier in her life. They literally couldn’t run hall lights under certain situations, I believe the partial solution was installation of extra diesel generators (somebody please correct me if I am wrong on that).

If we don’t know, then don’t quote fake news pieces, & I won’t feel compelled to call BS.

Erm?! In this thread at no point have I quoted any news reports. I have called you out as a bit paranoid…that is your funeral! But don’t accuse me of something I haven’t done!:mad:

As for Wesley Clarke in 2007…you are keen on bashing us over the head on that one aren’t you! What he said FIVE YEARS AGO has no bearing on official NATO policy NOW! So far every major NATO nation that has said anything about Syria has clearly stated that they don’t want to do any kind of intervention…PERIOD! AS for the US there is no way Obama in a presidential election year is going to launch any major military action unless Syria deploys Chemical or Nuclear weapons!!!

In respect of what Turkey did or didn’t do, I’m not touching that with a barge pole in this forum! What I am saying is they are not keen at this point in responding militarily and article 5 is being waved as a red herring by people who seem keen on grandstanding at the moment. Article 5 only really applies if Syria was attempting to invade Turkey. It was invoked on 11/9 but frankly that was all symbolic.