Modern air forces are looking toward multi-role aircraft as a way to reduce costs. The Harrier airframe doesn’t provide multi-role capabilities and survivability for the next 30 to 50 years. They army might be interested in a cheap and affordable ground support aircraft they could operate themselves but I doubt that will ever happen.

If that the situation, then the argument will go back to F-35B, which then will again incurs debate of too expensive and sophisticated, etc,etc for VSTOL Strike Aircraft need.

My point is, if what they looking is for 5th gen Multi-role VSTOL, then stick with expensive F-35B for front line – emergency strip use as what Harrier intended to be in beginning. Forget that more than USD 120 mio aircraft being vulnerable from front line ground attack, because that’s what part of VSTOL need to be.

However if some cost considerations still need to be considered for future VSTOL Fighter operations. Then a potential for further upgrading Harrier as Harrier NG can solved that. After all if the Marines only look for something that can provide air cover from front line bases thus close proximity from ground operations, then Harrier NG perhaps still make sense.

Thus if a 5th gen multi-role all inclusive VSTOL fighter is a ‘must’ be need, then the risk for ground attack on USD 120 mio + aircraft (for example) also ‘must’ be accepted.

Is a future VSTOL fighter need to be an all inclusive 5th gen, or just some ground support fighter ?

Boeing has said in marketing campaigns that the 777-300ER carries 90% of the payload but only burns 70% of the fuel. Many factors go into total cost/seat, but it is possible to “guesstimate” fuel/seat. Fuel always varies based on a lot of factors, but a “ballpark” burn for a 772 is about 17,000 lb/hr (7.7 tonnes), the 773ER is about 20,000 (9 t). A 744 burns about 25,000 (11.4), GE’s a little less. Not sure about RR on the 744, once again these burns vary based upon many factors but I believe they are reasonably accurate. If you know the seating capacity, you can use the numbers above to get a rough estimate of fuel burn per seat. Near as I can tell, a nice ballpark number for the A380 is about 32,000 or 14.5 t.

I think the capability of 777-300ER will hurt Boeing 747-8i more than A-380. More 747-400 being replaced by 777 versions than A-380. For Airliners that depend much on business travelers (which make the bulk of long range market), 777 or A-330 and A-350 will be more economically senses than A-380. A-380 will not repeat the hight of 747 era.

all island belong to china because of history. all countries want to fight china for the islands did not exist in history. the island belong to china since han dynasty!! no filipine in that time!!

Well, in that case People Republic have to relinquished 50% of China present territory, since basically that’s what Han Dynasty territory is 😀

They have to find cause of crash not because of market perception but for safety

Safety is only just a ‘part’ that can create market perceptions. I give up to talk business sense to you. If safety is bad, then the Market will not give good perceptions for that Airplane, thus NO BANK will going to finance the procurement of the Airplane.

Market Perception can derived from Safety, from cost, from maintanance, from support, etc altogether will determine the acceptance of ANY PRODUCT in the Market. So don’t talk about Market Perceptions does not mean anything if you don’t have ANY IDEA what market perception is.

I
Market perception is not important at all. A380 has very slow induction but Middleastern airline have the largest orders as they can afford it.

Neither MA-60 nor An-26 are certified. Your simply not understanding some thing will be proven but not certified for latest noise, environment and operational safety standards.

Sorry have to disagree. Market Perceptions is a very big thing. Why do you think the Sukhoi with the back-up of Russian Administrations goes all out to solve the caused of the crash. They’re trying to save the reputations of Russian commercial aircraft industry.

You’re talking too much from engineers perspective. But sorry, this days the engineers are not the ones who determines which aircraft going to get sold or bought by the Airliners. The ‘bean-counters’ a.k.a the Financiers and the Marketers are the ones that determined. For them market perceptions is very important if not close to everything.

You can’t compared today situations of Airbus with the current situations of Sukhoi. For the Airline industry Airbus Brand already close to a ‘bond’ just like Boeing. The perceptions of the Industry, their products sells and more importantly ‘trusted by the market. Again like I stated before, Market Perceptions is not just related to actual situations. It’s perceptions anyway, and perceptions can be build, but have to be earned.

If the Airbus A-300 prototype meet a ‘fatal’ crashed during a demo tour, then Airbus on that time perhaps would meet ‘market perceptions’ and ‘reputations’ problem with the International customers just like Sukhoi faced today. Anyway, no Airbus A-380 meet such fatal crashed as today. Still today, they have enough reputations and more importantly Global Market ‘trust’, while Sukhoi still not achieved that on commercial Airliners (far from it).

Again I’m not saying that Sukhoi 100 dommed to meet the ‘failure’ with International Market caused of this incidents. However if the Sukhoi can’t solved the crash with proven data showing their Aircraft is alright, and ‘convince’ the market on that. Then yes, Sukhoi 100 project can faced failure in the International market.

Again you may not agree with that, but I do believe the Sukhoi people agree on the power of ‘market perceptions’ which made them goes all out campaign to handle ‘damage control’ situations. They’re put campaign in media that the two Indonesian Airliners still comiited to the order of Sukhoi 100 despite the crash. If this not one of their way to convince the market, then you still do not have an idea how important the market perception is for the Sukhoi.

For AN-26, I’m not talking about certifications. I’m talking about proven design, and AN-26 is a proven design. Thus MA-60 (which’s a modified design of AN-26) based on a proven design.

Originally Posted by J-20 Hotdog View Post
Yes they can. They can simply refuse to ride on a plane they perceive as dangerous. No passenger no profit.

Those days are over. Most passengers look for lowest ticket prices and lowest ticket prices are only given by airplanes that have lowest life cycle cost. (Alot of things goes into it.) As long as plane is certified. No one can stop an airline from not using it.

Both you gents have merits. I believe this will in the end comes down on the market demand and situations. For Indonesia I can give you example. When Merpati Chinese made MA-60 Turboprop meet fatal crash on 2010 in Papua, Merpati found in the situations where many passengers simply do not want to get in to their MA-60.

However in Papua area and many parts of Eastern Indonesia (like Mollocas and Eastern Nusa Tenggara/Timor), Merpati is the biggest player in the short-medium hauled, and people did not have the choices but to take Merpati including taking their MA-60. However in the area where Merpati found credible competitions on regional routes in form of ATR-72 of their rival Wing Air, then people preferred taking Wing’s ATR-72 compared to Merpati’s MA-60.

In short, yes prices do matter, but so does passengers preferences of the aircraft. Sukhoi Superjet basically is a Western Plane that Assembled in Russia. Kartika Air and Sky Aviation together already ordered 42 Sukhoi 100 (not 30 on my previous posting). Sky’s supposed to get 3 between Sept and Dec this year. However the accident put them on hold (just like J-20 links to Jakarta Post).

Now Kartika and Sky order made around 25% of firm order of Sukhoi 100 according Ria Novosti. Their suspensions can ‘potentially’ create huge problem for Sukhoi 100 future (outside Russia), due to bad perceptions on the plane. It’s not fair, since the plane mostly used Western Parts, but again Market perceptions never been a ‘fair’ business.

On the other hand Kartika and Sky on their present situations simply can’t afford new Airbus and Boeing on that particular number. They can try used Boeing and Airbus, but the present Indonesian market like I put in previous post simply faced by huge order of New Boeing and Airbus by Big Players. Thus the average age of your fleet do matter.

In other word in order for Kartika and Sky to offered competitive pricing, they need to have economics scale (thus relative large fleet), and in the same time have to present the market with relative ‘young’ fleet in order to keep up with the trend set by the Big Boys. With their budget, they simply have to get Sukhoi Superjet. Therefor they’re really in the hard places. I do believe they are hoping the finding will show the technical matter of Sukhoi 100 is meet the International standard, since if not then they simply will find hard time selling Sukhoi 100 to the market. While again they do not have enough wallet to keep up with similar number of new Airbuses and Boeing.

The question marks hanging over early crashes of the A.320 never did it any long term harm, nor did the rudder problems of the 737 cause widespread condemnation.

That’s happen to Airbus and Boeing. Brand do matter. Sukhoi simply do not have enough brand strength on commercial airliners to expect people/customers simply can shrug-off as easy if this happen to Boeing or Airbus. After all Airbus and Boeing do have to spend a lot and conduct relative large market campaign if there are crashes due to their technical fault. Can the same luxury afforded by Sukhoi ?? That’s the questions.

Just Come out :

Indonesian Air Force officials have found the wreckage of the Russian Sukhoi SuperJet-100, which dropped off radar Wednesday, report local media. Forty-eight are feared dead in the accident.

The plane was detected at an altitude of 5,500 feet on the edge of a cliff in a mountainous area, as three helicopters and over 600 rescuers resumed their search operation around Salak Mountain, in Java’s west, on Thursday morning.

Earlier in the day, Indonesian authorities expressed hope for an emergency landing.

Still, the capital’s Emergency Agency chief, Ketut Parwa, admits that if there had been an emergency landing some news via the radio or phone calls should have made their way in by now.

http://rt.com/news/russian-plane-missing-indonesia-877/

Seems the plane did crash near the Volcano crater.
From Indonesian Sites (Sorry in Bahasa Indonesia) : http://news.detik.com/read/2012/05/10/095129/1913687/10/dari-udara-sukhoi-yang-jatuh-di-gunung-salak-tampak-utuh?9911012

Basically, The SAR Team already sighted the main body of the Airplane. Even-though look intact, but they are very pessimists anyone survive.