JSRlol. can’t tell if you’re serious or trolling
IL-476 is going to be viable for decades to come. there will be huge price to pay for upfront license and than training workers on built methods. as i mentioned before whole is much greater than some of parts.
but these moot point. Only reason Japanese are building this to keep employment as these workers may not be that much usefull in other industries.
uh, ever look at the cockpits of Japanese airliners or the F-2? it uses alphabet not Japanese. Hell even Chinese aircraft do the same.. go look at a JF-17 or J-10 cockpit.
http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/4415/j10ex3.jpg
http://www.defence.pk/gallery/data/649/PAFJF-17SimulatorMAKS2007001.jpg
I havent looked at cockpit but i had JDM navigation system in a car descriptions were in Japanese. Japanese dont make cockpit for Boeing/Airbus. so i am not sure it will be cost effective to entertain them in local language.
Chinese cockpit is irrelevant. as Most of Chinese will have exposure to english.
JSRI don’t think he mentioned China in that context at all, saying that only the PLA would be in a position or have the need to blow up some American airfields short of starting WWIII and that’s only in the taiwan scenario.
As for the quality of weapons… ~200 J-10s over six years or some ain’t bad I think, ~28mil USD a pop?I like how AEWC, tankers, VVS and PLAAF have to do with F-22s ESM and radar.
thats whats written with such conviction of Anywhere.
Anywhere were double digits SAM´s and evolved Flankers would be present in decent numbers. On a “purely theoretical” scenario, its called “China”.
Cheers
The only evolved Flanker are Su-34 & Su-35. The rest are not evolved Flankers at all but mere replacements of older parts with newer parts.
J-10 is 21st century MIG-21. It is good as long as there is surplus technical labor and materials/money/energy/space is cheap to be wasted on numerous short leg low end product. That period is now closed.
JSRBlowing $300billion on bullet trains? You mean HSR right, how exactly was that money wasted? A crash of an old non chinese design is not going to cancel the entire program, nowhere near that.
I’d hesitate comparing the “modernization” of china and russia’s aviation industries in coming years, but I’m pretty sure they will have more money to throw around simply due to the comparative and projected strength of the chinese economy.
that $300b is gone. you wont have chance second time.Well all they need is for SAC to modify a J-11 enough to accomodate an aircraft like Su-30 or Su-34. Not to mention their heavy multirole stealth fighter, J-19 (watch this space). Then of course, one may argue J-20 can act as a strike fighter when you load it up with SDBs, and it will certainly have the range…
—
Why drag china into this in the first place… OTOT
China was brought in in the second reply by Mr.Sintara that only China can produce fighters and double digit SAMs in decent numbers. when there is not factual basis for it. not in numbers nor in quality of weapons. and no one know how much labor & cost was used to produce those fighters. that tipping point of labor inefficiency has long term effects.
JSRI am only putting in context of libya. where you dont need that many airrefuellers when you have large fleet of Tupolev bombers. as Libya has virtually no SAM/airfighter and rest can be destroyed on ground by X-555.
bombers gives you more loiter time.
second point is larger fuel tanks of larger aircraft. large size aircraft like Su-24/Su-34. Even 40 aircraft in total can bring down a third world country in couple of days. You dont need 6 months for that.
when you make your fighters smaller. your in need of more tanker support. hence more fuel and fighter escort. so the whole mission becomes expensive.
$80b in 2003 for Irak war prepartion start can easily become $500b in today money as Brent price is now five times.
so you have to look at cost effectiveness angle. is there money to operate 500 tankers in high intensity conflict?
China lacks both large loitering aircraft and high speed bombers. so it will not be able to react to tactical long range situation.
JSRIt’s not that NATO couldn’t afford more than 1-2 bases, its that they didn’t need more.
Russia/India doesn’t have better AWACS/Airrefuellers/strike aircraft,
and their air force isn’t better just because of a powerpoint wish-list
of a better future.Still US economy is going downhill so your dream will probably come true some day when no-one wants to lend them any more.
where else you will find better bombers than Tupolev. Not that Libya has modern SAMs or modern fighters.
you may want to read about Sakrozy today speach.
Russia/India do have better AWACS as they can put more powerful engines,larger fuel tanks and bigger Antenna than China.
http://www.beriev.com/eng/core_e.html
China after blowing $300b on bullet trains and another $1.5T on local governments don’t have the surplus cash to modernize its Aviation industry on the same scale as Russia.
Industry modernization is separate than Procurement budget. Some countries have procurement budget but not industrial modernization & certification on large scale.
Irkut alone delivered 200 tvc equipped fighters in past 10 years alone. It is pretty good productiviy level for tvc/canard fighter. So it gives more confidence for next 10 years.
So I am very skeptical about China ability of modern strike fighters that are have long legs and can lift giant pods seen on Su-30/Su-34.
JSRwho can afford dozens of airfields war with all the protection?. NATO atmost could afford one or two airfields against Libya.
The era of 5G fighters spread in dozens of airflields is over. I consider Russia/India has more stronger airforces due to better AWACS/Airrefuellers/strike aircraft and better future road map.
JSRcould they generate money.
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/08/29/2011082900358.html
N.Korea’s Air Force Chief with Kim Jong-il on Russia Trip
JSRI highly doubt Japan can afford license of IL-476 or Russia willing to give them license for small order of 20 aircraft. Cooperation at most will be for puting Japanese language on LCD displays. that digital cockpit is going to be certified by EASA.
It would be logical, but one must remember that Japanese politics are broken, & logic (other than the logic of satisfying the demands of factional interests within the two main political parties) is often thrown out of the window.
Politics or not does not matter now. there is $33b draw down from pension fund in single quarter.
so the more logical choice is to windup the avaition industry and concentrate funds & highest techical skills on few core sectors to fend off Koreans/Chinese.
JSRhttp://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/maks-2011-klimov-powered-version-of-mi-38-makes-a-debut-31007/
MAKS 2011: Klimov-powered Version of Mi-38 Makes a Debut
JSRfits the requirement? what kind of requirements are those that existing aircraft cannot be modified in cooperation.
It is not 1980s that Japan can afford throw money and technical people around for very small utility.
JSRI put Irkut as stand alone factory profitability because most of Irkut products are for export untill this point. so there is less bias. some time government contracts can be below price or above reasonable price
Time will come when most of Boeing/Airbus/Bombardier/Embaraer airliners components will be made in China. & at that time UAC can proclaim Made in Not China airline.
I have no doubt Russia will become the largest vertically integrated aerospace industry in the world as UAC is not going to use Chinese components in Aircrafts. To be competitive aeroplane is more than sum of its parts. Chinese cannot create that whole product competitive and others all increasing Chinese components in there products.
.
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pressreleases/press-release-detail/detail/airbus-goodrich-and-vsmpo-avisma-reinforce-their-partnership-on-the-a350-xwb-programme/
60% of EADS titanium comes from VSMPO on top of contract with Boeing. And there is separate firm Aerocomposites created.
JSRThe prospect of C-2 anykind of success is zero. Only 20 been ordered. and first delivery is in 2014.
first two will cost them close to $250m a piece based on 2011 budget.
http://newpacificinstitute.org/jsw/?p=4456
i dont think Aircraft with fat x-section will be efficient.
JSRIraq had no financial reserves, & huge debts in 2003. It had been through 23 years of war & embargo, with three wars & at least two major insurrections. In that time, its infrastructure had been neglected. Much of the damage from earlier wars was still unrepaired before the 2003 war. It then suffered years of insurrection against the new rulers, & a flight of skilled & educated people.
Libya has had six months of war. Large parts of the country have little or no damage. It has huge net foreign assets, which the new government will have access to. This gives it an enormous advantage compared to Iraq. Its infrastructure was in relatively good condition before the war. Many skilled & educated Libyans have returned home to fight in the war, & declare their intention to stay & rebuild the country.
Whether Libya bounces back, & if so how quickly, depends on security. If the Gaddafists can be suppressed quickly, & order is restored, it could be very fast. If not – who knows?
enormous advantage compared to Iraq? that we can debate later. . The largest infrastructure builders were Chinese/Turks in Libya pre-war.
Gadaffi was pretty efficient in distributing contracts for those who can do the job. i doubt anyone else can do better job.
THe problem is the negative effect on UK/France of rise in Brent price after this whole libya revolution. Private sector CEO dont invest in low GDP growth countries. & more gov austerity is compounding the problem.
JSRGood grief!
How do you think US jet engines fitted to some Airbus models get to Europe? How do you think Rolls-Royce engines fitted to Boeing 777s & 787s get to Seattle? How do you think the sections of the V2500 made in the USA, Germany, the UK & Japan get to the two final assembly locations in the USA & UK, or the US & French parts of the CFM56 cross the Atlantic? How do you think P&W engines will get to Russia for the MS-21? And so on, for all the other commercial aircraft parts incorporated into aircraft made in other continents, such as parts of the Bombardier Global Express flown from Germany, Northern Ireland & Japan to Canada for final assembly. They’re high-value products, worth sending by air.
What ur example has anything to do with what I wrote?
Any factory for modern airline requires high skill labor with good wages. You never built single product assembly line for uncertain market and very low volume. That was the mistake of both Embarear and EADS in China.
Airbus/Boeing has certain monopoly (that monopoly is itself government funded) in this sector so they can waste money and still charge premium price but once that monopoly is gone this business model will not work.
for breakeven the minimum for SSJ is 60 to 70 a year. for MS-21 it is close to 100 a year. and these are built in factories who are multifunctional in product line and will have alternative engines and avionics. So transport not bring just one kind of engines/components by air or train and workers don’t sit idle.
the factory that will be producing IL-476 will also produce An-124 & MTA with all related upgrades additional work.
Embarrer has $5.5b of yearly sales. Irkut has $1.6b of sales. But gross profit of Irkut is far higher percentage. (when you remove the effect of taxes). It means Irkut is making greater part of components inhouse or inside Russia for its products.
http://ri.embraer.com.br/Embraer/default.aspx?linguagem=en
http://www.irkut.com/en/news/press_release_archives/index.php?id48=439
It was lack of competition in this sector that give free ride to assembelers like Bombardier/Embarrer to adopt same business model as Airbus/Boeing.
JSRThe problem is the *decision* (Russia’s in-decision, to be precise) NOT the software, let alone the aircraft. Your reading comprehension (or is it bias?) has failed you again.
And decision cannot be taken because it is a difficult decision. due to amount of work and investment involved with no so certain specifications of end product whether they will meet the design specification.
Sign In
