Snow MonkeyThere’s an awful lot of BS floating around this thread.
UAC has no need for some crazy huge MS-21 from Aeroflot, which would imply Aeroflot doubling or tripling it’s fleet size in order to beat Boeing or Airbus on price… They are already doing that with MS-21 orders, which already seriously undercut anything they can offer while still offering better performance.
They do want to, and plan on, making not insignificant sales to airlines in non-CIS countries, because the fact is that good news they achieve at home just isn’t worth the same in global mind-share as main-line western airlines loving their product. It’s pretty clear that Delta is pretty seriously considering MS-21, amongst other airlines, so I’m not sure how much better they could be doing here considering these are all customers who have never even CONSIDERED buying from UAC/Ilyushin/any Russian/Ukrainian company. This while their product can barely be mentioned by the Western press, although COMAC gets plenty of word count with less orders and less impressive of a product.
Snow MonkeyMaybe 2 midgets can fit in an F-22? 😉
Probably a fighter that could pull it off would be a 2 seater PAK-FA or MiG-31…
Snow MonkeyWhy would you think it couldn’t be?
Snow MonkeyI see the case for Russian Mi-35 not being so much simultaneous usage as attack and transport, i.e. transporting assault troops to be backed up by the same aircraft doing CAS, but simply flexibility in fleet role… More transport are available within theatre if they are needed… Possibly even Mi-35 on attack duty in the area can be re-tasked for emergency evacuation, etc. The full power or efficiency in role of a Mi-28 just isn’t needed for the vast majority of how Russia is and envisions using attack helicopters, so a flexible platform is just nice to have. That it’s very export friendly only strengthens the case, IMHO.
Snow MonkeycSee Bombardier CSeries fuselage made in China but not in lower cost India or more experiance Brazil.
It doesn’t affect your main argument, but who in Brazil is going to assemble fuselages for Bombardier? Embraer? Right, didn’t think so… 😀
Snow MonkeyDoes anybody know about the targetting pod thing re: UAE?
I saw some story saying they were negotiating to fund a new development of Damocles…
But isn`t Damocles XF or whatnot already in the pipeline?
Is this just bad reporting, or ido they want ANOTHER new version of Damocles?
I guess there`s no more info on this subject? Not surprising, given the recent float of Eurofighter re: UAE.
I was surprised by the mention of want for a better Damocles, given a better one is in the works, and that should be better than the Sniper pod that they are supposedly holding out as an alternate. I wonder if the subject actually being discussed isn`t an upgraded IRST/OSF, which would make alot more sense.
Snow MonkeyDoes anybody know about the targetting pod thing re: UAE?
I saw some story saying they were negotiating to fund a new development of Damocles…
But isn`t Damocles XF or whatnot already in the pipeline?
Is this just bad reporting, or ido they want ANOTHER new version of Damocles?
Also: unrelated to Rafale… I`m confused: How can Eurofighter claim 2015 EIS of AESA radar when no operator has signed a contract for that yet? Or is this just marketing speak? I mean, I`m not so much doubting that it`s impossible to achieve that date if a customer purchased it, but that last part hasn`t happened yet so `EIS` seems confusing/misleading to me…?
Snow MonkeyThe 737 replacement market is now a crowed market with Boeing and Airbus coming with a re-engine version and Comac and Irkut with a new type , Bombardier is news to me though but it would be a great competition and MS-21 will have to sweat their **** out if they have to win many customers.
No, this is just more quality Western aerospace reporting. Besides `forgetting` MS-21 because everybody knows the Chinese are so awesome and one more manufacturer is just too hard to remember, Bombardier shouldn`t really be on this list at all: The largest CSeries is below the smallest 737 / 319 capacity, at around 130 passengers, so calling it a `replacement` alongside A320neo, and C919 is RATHER a stretch.
The SSJ-130 is suppose to have a P&W 1100 GTF engine of reduced thrust to keep the commonality between MS-21 and SSJ-130 engine logistics. It is also suppose to have a composite wing , they were suppose to declare the SSJ-130 but priorities changed and they focussed on Business Jet Version of SSJ but SSJ-130 will come by 2015 as per changed plans.
If i am not wrong SSJ enjoys a slight edge over all current similar rival in having a larger cabin and they also turned out to be 2T heavier then originally designed but its making good progress among buyers :
Yeah, that`s what I`ve been expecting re: the engine, although I haven`t solid info on that… as you say, it`s been pushed to the back burner a bit. Looking even further out, do you know if there are plans to fit the MS-21 avionics to the SSJ-100 as well as a composite wing? A new engine would probably go along with that… I`m sure there are contractual obligations with Snecma re: engine on SSJ-100, but with new wing and avionics that is pretty much a new plane… I`m not sure if they`re obligated to sell SSJ-100 for a certain period of time though (with Snecma JV engine). With that level of re-work, possibly including more structural changes (composites, etc), a SSJ-100-NG could be on good competitive terms with the article`s re-engined/re-built E-Jets in that class. Given their current prices, Embraer would be under serious pricing pressure if Sukhoi even came near what they achieve.
The comedy is China has never designed a decent jet till date and C 919 is considered as a rival but Russia has so many design and production experience of many aircraft under its belt and yet figures no were with MS-21 in that list , hypocrisy at its best :rolleyes:
Yeah… I mean, just look at what COMAC itself is claiming as C919`s performance: it`s nothing special, compared to A320NEO much less MS-21. The whole issue is down to Western capitalist infatuation with China, land of cheap labor… US neo-cons, when they aren`t imagining a war with China, are waxing about how they wish the US was more like China, etc. If China is serious about it, presumably they can offer very good sales terms, loans, etc., which you can certainly drum up sales with if they are good enough and the product isn`t total crap (or maybe even then). But the Western coverage seems predicated on the idea that C919 will be REALLY REALLY cheap… even though COMAC is outsourcing so much work to Western OEMs who charge normal Western prices.
I actually looked into this last year, and compared pricing on SSJ to COMAC`s ARJ-21 (which also has Western sub-systems similar to C919), even if the ARJ-21 program is way behind SSJ. The only price I found for an ARJ-21 sale was to GECAS, and this was for a deal more than twice as big as any SSJ sale… (I think 3x actually) …Yet the price GECAS paid is more than all SSJ sales to date (price per airframe).
Yes, that runs against common wisdom… But I don`t take China`s price advantage to be a given, although if they want to they can make financing very nice, of course. Given the news that COMAC will be sub-contracting for UAC`s future wide-body (Ekojet Frigate presumably) and not going their own way in widebody/longhaul, it doesn`t seem to me like China is really throwing in everything they got, even if they may have considered that at one point. They may well run C919 at a loss, or at a loss before forcing Chinese carriers to buy it, but assuming infinite capital to back super-lax financing on top of cheap platform price doesn`t seem as sure a thing as the Western press seems to believe… without a plan for their own long-haul based on experience in a succesful C919 product, there isn`t any reason to throw gold at C919 without any limit.
Snow MonkeyEuropeans have traditionally been more relaxed about this than the USA. India has been free to do what it likes with its Sea Harriers & licence-built Jaguars for many years, for example, & long ago built an Indian improved version of the Gnat, which it had a complete free hand with.
If anything, I`d expect the vendor might want to push for a clause saying sales (of upgrades, etc) to other countries have to go thru the vendor… But given the scale of this sale, that may not even apply. In any case, unless a clause specifically limits them from doing so, nothing prevents them from using the ToT to do as they wish. As far as Dassault goes, they haven`t seemed to care much when India did it`s own modifications even when that wasn`t 100% allowed by the contract (re: Mirage 2000). I would say it is highly likely that India will be able to provide independent weapon integration to other countries.
Snow MonkeyThought I`d post this here as it`s a relevant competitor for Superjet:
…The E-170, E-175, E-190 and E-195 jets straddle the 70-120 seat market, but the re-engined family could stretch to 130 seats, Silva said. “[A stretched version] can be a possibility. Of course nothing is yet decided,” Silva said, before adding: “I believe many of our customers would like to have such an aircraft.”
Embraer has started working with E-Jet customers to start defining the performance goals and technical characteristics of the new aircraft family. Incorporating a composite airframe is among the improvements being considered, Silva said. But the most important change already decided is to replace the General Electric CF34 with an all-new engine. GE is currently developing an advanced turbofan in the same power class called the “Passport”. However, Silva declined to commit to using that powerplant as the default engine for the second-generation E-Jet. …The re-engined aircraft will have a larger fan diameter, which will require Embraer to install taller landing gear to allow sufficient ground clearance.
The larger stretch would be in line with SSJ-130 / NG, which seems to now be tied to the MS-21 program`s avionics… I`m not aware that engine choice has been made, but would seem to be the main differentiator to a stretch-upgrade E-Jet… besides the considerable price difference based on current SSJ prices vs. Embraer. The re-engined 90-100 seater would presumably have a signifigant advantage against the current SSJ-100 with it`s current engine.
Oh yeah: more professional Western aerospace specialist news coverage of the highest standards:
The move leaves the Bombarder CSeries and Comac C919 alone to challenge the narrowbody duopoly of the 737 and A320.
:rolleyes:
Snow Monkeythat`s the idea I believe, with full ToT, they could add whatever they want at their own cost.
anything that is in the original MMRCA (any parts, subsystems) they will be contracted for,
but it`s possible they may be in position to sell upgrades to other users of said platform if they wish.
Snow MonkeyI beleive they want to resolve the L1 before December comes around.
ESPECIALLY if there is a chance that they end up deciding based on non-L1 factors,
that would be preferable to leave them time to negotiate details with the chosen bidder.
Well, preferably this would have happened 2 months ago…
Snow MonkeyWell… that is ONE reading of that article… which never occured to me. 🙂
You can see A2G UCAVs as fulfilling that cheaper A2G role, and they can and should.
But you also have to realize that all those multi-role jets over Libya are also capable of enforcing no-fly zones (for people they don`t like).
If you say `let`s scrap multi-role platforms and rely on narrow A2G UCAVs/manned platforms` for that job (only leaving a small amount of high end platforms capable of A2A as well as high end A2G e.g. vs. serious SAM networks) that means that you also need to worry about dealing with low-end A2A scenarios, like patrolling no-fly zones.
I read the article more as recognizing the role of lower-end jets like F-16 and Gripen, which are multi-role but cheaper to operate than F-15, F-18, Rafale, Typhoon, Tornado, et al. If I imagine 15 years out, when/if European countries may be considering new manned programs, I exactly for this reason forsee developing two platforms: a low cost platform in line with Gripen NG, maybe more stealth, but not much, and a higher cost platform able to take on all threat scenarios… With sharing of engine and avionics, that can be plausibly affordable, as well as maximizing commonality across all users, vs. the fragmented Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen plus F16/F18/futureF35 user base.
I also read the article in the context of munitions. Cheap but accurate and usable munitions are just as much part of the cost picture. US and NATO countries use weapons that are meant to take out tanks, or fortifications, for stuff that needs 10% of the TNT. Laser guidance seems where it`s at for this role in terms of cost… Actually, maybe somebody can answer this question I`ve had for a while: Lasers can`t be used thru clouds, fog, etc. At least thru water vapor effects (not dust, smoke) wouldn`t X-Ray lasers, or masers, be a viable option as well? Why haven`t I heard anything about such a thing? 🙂 Airborne gun platforms are also another platform that is useful to have, yet doesn`t seem to be in any new developments past the C-130 gunship.
Snow MonkeyI don´t have ´insider information´ to know the actual status of things that aren´t public domain,
but EARLIER IN THIS VERY SAME THREAD, a poster specifically posted re: the single-piece canopy tender issue,
that the specifics of that tender in fact referred to single piece canopy in the meaning of the word
´canopy behind windscreen´, i.e. not that the entire cockpit enclosure is one piece, but the piece behind the windscreen is one piece.
Why keep harping on the same crap when people DO share their knowledge on the matter, and it´s ignored? RESPECT
Snow MonkeyIt is by Weight , by surface area its 70 %
25% vs. 40% seems plausible enough as the first being Sukhoi´s initial base-line when they were first designing the prototypes, and 40% may now be what they are aiming for, with tests validated and more mature information about both the plane and production techniques…
That said, I don´t really care about some high proportion of composites, this isn´t an airliner and Titanium structures can be seriously effective. Anybody know any more specifics of the structure, i.e. is laser sintering of Ti powder being used? (allows more efficient structures than other metal-working methods).
re: the AMCA thing, honestly there would probably be a signifigant conflict of interest between Russia and India re: work-share if India wants to do alot. ¨Leading¨ the project per se need not be a problem, since that could leave signifigant core work to Russia… but both sides working on one plane could still be problematic. I do think a single engine approach would be useful for both countries, in which case even without a shared program, the option may exist to share components including engine, amongst other parts. Both sides get full ownership of their plane, while sharing economies of scale re: components. A design derived from a PAK-DA engine could be an option… I could see a design derived from Item 127 as well, if it has enough growth margin. Since India would already be building 127, I could see serious interest in that from their end. On the other hand, Snecma-Kaveri may not be overly impressive for a c. 2025 engine, but it will be compatable with IAF/IN´s fleet of Tejas, MMRCA (if Rafale wins) /and/ AMCA if they go that route, so it will have benefits of it´s own for India. (though Tejas+Rafale seems plenty enough synergy to me, and IMHO going for a real 5th gen engine would be India´s interests if they expect AMCA to fulfill the expectations they are putting on it)
I see rationale for a Russian single-engined light/medium fighter at many levels: cost for RuAF fleet itself, exportability, and simply keeping development capacity fresh, post-2020… Alternating new developments with upgrades (e.g. to PAKFA) facilitates a spiral development program while continually keeping the development base strong. Engine synergy with either Izd. 127 or the PAK-DA engine would be a no-brainer to me.
Sign In
