we dont know if the SM models will be kept past 2020. The recent news did say pretty clearly that su35 will replace su27. SM is su27. And yes, they have been modernized, but they have been modernized some five years ago. by 2020 they will still be some 12 or so years old post modernization and some 30 years old in total.

Also, if anyone can find it, i seem to recollect another official statement some months ago that su24 will be taken out of service by 2020, to be replaced by su34. So no su24 should serve beyond that point. Again, nothing really too strange as were talking about 30 year old airframes by then, at best.

Sure, years of life does not equate flight hours, but even with flight hours calculations it should be several thousand hours, plus possible corrosion etc…

su25, however, may serve a bit more… i dont think there were any news about them. There is news about a replacement model but that is likely to be later than 2020, at least in numbers to replace the whole current fleet.

strike ucav before 2020 is impossible, in my opinion. russia is behind other countries in ucav department, and all the others are in demostrator phase. not even the West will have strike ucavs in active service in 2020.

If they have put new engines into SU-27SM. they are going to stay untill 2030. newer AL-31 has 3 times service life of earlier ones.
Even MIG-29 whose airframe originally had much shorter life will stay untill atleast 2025 in IAF service after upgrades. I am not sure why you assume Su-27SM will retire earlier than MIG-29SMT. when built dates are from late 1980s. Su-24 may retire around 2020.
strike UCAV is all about money. it does not take that much time to develop once they are done with T-50. as T-50 will give more experiance into composites/internal weopons etc.

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.

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

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.

Again market perception is not important. think harder. It is the banking system. you can have very good aeroplane but without banking system willing to take risk of financing it to loss making airlines. It is not going to sell.

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.

Airbus sells because it was backed up by banking system of EU and that banking system is proped by cash surpluse countries of Middleast. who want to sell billions of dollars of aeroplanes to permanent loss making Airlines?. This thing is beyond logic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-11/british-airways-owner-iag-has-eu249-million-loss-on-fuel-iberia.html
British Airways Owner Posts Wider Loss on Fuel, Iberia Unit

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).

Airbus cannot sell shiit without bank financing to airlines. Sukhoi has much better quality control as everything integrated and manufactured in fewer locations. and that strong financing led FBW designer liebherr aerospace to build a plant in Russia.

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.

As i mentioned before as long as Oil prices keep rising with time and backed by sound banking sector. Sukhoi dont have to worry about market perception. They just need to build airlines and Aeroflot need to control the most profitable routes. why they need to sell aeroplanes abroad?. Airbus need to sell abroad because the home country airlines are loss making.

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.

we dont know at this point what cause the crash. and there is not a definite answer from Indo airlines about future procurement. how exactly is An-26 a proven design?. can it operate 24/7 with 98% up time.

those days are over. There’s a saturation of models in the regional jet market. Airlines have plenty of other options beyond Sukhoi. Also there’s a saturation of airlines in Indonesia. Passengers don’t want to fly Kartika with Superjets, no problem lots of other airlines they can fly from. Those indonesian sukhoi customers are flying routes that have tons of other operators.

At $300. There wont be Embarer as most of its components comes from EU including engines. So only Bombardier will be left and that only built with Chinese components. As i said Oil going up. the future of Russian airline and manufacturing will be brighter. They dont need to sell outside Russian airlines.

http://www.aeroflot.ru/cms/en/pressshare_release/13553
20 December 2011
Net profit of Aeroflot Group for 9 Month of 2011 totaled $376.8 mln according to IFRS. That is 36.6% more if compared to the same period of 2010

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-07/deutsche-lufthansa-reports-13m-euro-loss.html
Lufthansa Has Full-year Loss as BMI Wipes Out Operating Profit

Even future is not so bright either.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/57c9792c-6e74-11e1-b98d-00144feab49a.html#axzz1uhxs9Vpq
Lufthansa warns on deteriorating profits

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/air-france-klm-posts-483-million-loss-q1-16276416#.T68MucVNgvY
Air France-KLM Posts $483 Million Loss for Q1

With fleet of just 120 aircraft Aeroflot yearly profits are closer to $500m.
Now Lufthanasa group has yearly loss. Only in total operating profit it has advantage over Aeroflot only because it has fleet of 800 aircraft.

.

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.
There is big difference between commerical pilots and test pilots. commercial pilots are more like Bus drivers temperament for long haul. Test pilos are more like Formula 1 type for short fast races and more accident prone.
If they were using the plane for multi country tour. it was best to take pilots from Aeroflot.

That mainly concerned with delivery of the planes to customers. If engine issues causing delays are to be expected, then Sukhoi is to be blamed for being unrealistically optimistic of promising an early delivery to customers.

Any which way, certification of the engine and the rest of the certification processes go in parallel. There’re two or three other planes to do the rest of the certification not related to the engine. The thing is the few final tests, before the type certification was finally issued, were not engine related. One would expect this to be engine related tests if engine issues were delaying the type certification.

We’re off topic, so I think I should really stop here.

Engine was certified in summer of 2010. so production ramp takes couple of years as Snecma and Saturn were knew to each other in coopertion with different cultures and different testing procedures. The point i making it was more challenging for two companies to work together.
It is not GE/Snecma CFM where decades of working together make it smoother.

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/superjets-sam146-engine-wins-easa-certification-0623
Superjet’s SaM146 engine wins EASA certification

What nation would limit foreign investment based on its military ability to “protect” it? What century is it?

Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and practically every nation in Europe have far more investment than they are able to protect militarily.

This is one of most stupid observations I have heard here yet.

Sure very stupid. Taiwan/SK/Japan/EU have mostly cermonial militaries with missing links. They have US to maintain order.
I dont think China has made choice whether it is part of the former or it can independetly R&D and fund military that has long reach. thats why you see dysfunctional projects.

Not necessarily, but having studied comparative political economy under people much smarter than you or I, I have been notified of the fact that Russia has not been nearly as proactive at utilizing its recent wealth to build a sustainable and modern economy as China. I’m simply pointing out that Russia’s recent wealth is somewhat meaningless if it can’t use that wealth to actually modernize. You can go with anecdotes all you want, but just because Russians still have the knowledge capital to invent, does not mean they have the economic capital to execute. A diesel tank engine has relatively little to do with a comparison of the Russian and Chinese economies.

who are those smart people. why you think chinese are more sustainable than Japanese. Does Chinese have military power that make cost of input cheaper for them.
Remember it is not earth quake that closed down Japanese nuclear reactors. it merely exposed the system that was run on the cheap. Diesel engines for Tank matters if you want to utilize tanks every year in exercises and export it to make it economical. It shows execution of engineering talent that correspond to economic reality.

And speaking about aging manpower…Currently Russia’s population problems far outstrip that of China’s and Japans. In any case, I wasn’t so much interested in a pissing match as I was pointing out the usual problems with Russia’s recent wealth.

Both China and Japan has serious perblem with labor. cost of living in coastal areas is such that make it quality population growth unsustainable. Most of high end stuff that need imported components like Aeroplanes built in coastal area towns will be uneconomical. how many Airbus got exported from Chinese assembly line?. Practically same is true for helicopters.

You’re going off tangent on your own point.

On the other had, 1) Russia hasn’t “wasted” this scale of money because Russia hasn’t been able to spend that much money, and 2) the investments in Africa have paid off, and furthermore China is very weary of stationing permanent bases abroad. Even if it could, I doubt it would want to. China’s interests in Africa aren’t military but economic. They’re using Africa to generate demand for their own goods. I don’t think that requires a strong military presence.

Russian have considerably less exposure to bad loans. and it is reflected in bank profits relative to loan size. so why you think they cannot spend?
http://top.rbc.ru/economics/19/01/2012/633953.shtml.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T120508004831.htm
By country, China topped the list of borrowers from Japanese banks, registering a 28 percent year-on-year rise, followed by Malaysia, which had an increase of 26 percent from a year earlier

Japanese banks is playing the same role as French/German banks used to do for PIIGS.

Are you pretending to be so ignorant? The development of the SSJ100 started 2 years earlier, in 2000, than the ARJ-21’s which only started in 2002. The SSJ100 only got its certification from Russian authorities last year. So, it’s still early to say that SSJ100 got its certification faster than the ARJ-21.

And the engine is not entirely indigenous Russian. The fact is the French is responsible for taking care of the more critical components of the engine project i.e. the engine core and control systems.

As to market penetration of the SSJ100 or Russian commercial airliner jets in general, they’re still mostly limited within former soviet bloc countries.

well you cannot seriously start designing an airplane unless you know the engine. Problems of ARJ-21 goes beyond than selecting an engine.

http://www.snecma.com/sam146-engine-completes.html?lang=fr
PowerJet, founded in July 2004, is a joint venture of Snecma (Safran group) of France and NPO Saturn of Russia. It is in charge of the SaM146 engine program, including development, production, marketing, sales and support. In April 2003, the SaM146 was selected by Sukhoi Civil Aircraft to power its Superjet 100 regional jet.

http://www.geaviation.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/cf34/cf34_20021104.html
November 4, 2002
ZHUHAI, China – AVIC I Commercial Aircraft Co. Ltd. (ACAC) of China today signed a cooperative Letter of Intent with GE selecting GE’s CF34-10A engine to power the ARJ21 regional jet now in development.