Does Russia need an updated Sukhoi Superjet 100 New?


And again about long-suffering Superjet. It is reported that within three years its "import-substituted" version will be created under the name Sukhoi Superjet 100 New. The cost of such a "renovation" is estimated at 120 to 130 billion rubles. This information provoked polar assessments in relation to itself.


The original version of the Superjet is now considered an extremely bad project. Mikhail Pogosyan, general designer of Sukhoi Civil Aircraft, once "sang" to President Putin that his company would be able to produce up to 1300 short-haul airliners, and thanks to "deep cooperation with foreign suppliers of components", 85% of the aircraft will be sold abroad, and the remaining 15% will cover the domestic needs of Russia. The reality turned out to be somewhat different.

At first, the liner turned out to be in fact a banal "constructor" of imported components. This immediately made itself felt at the first cooling of relations with the West: it suddenly turned out that one fifth of the Superjet was American, which is why the US Treasury banned their sale to Iran. As a result, 99% of the aircraft produced are operated in our country, and foreign companies refuse them due to their inability to establish normal after-sales service.

Secondly, it turned out that the vaunted engines of the French development SaM146 are rare rubbish. They have significant design flaws, which is why they quickly fail and require serious and expensive repairs. Mainly because of the French part of the joint development of the power plant "Superjets" stand more on the ground than fly.

Thirdly, other design flaws were also found that were critical for Russian conditions. For example, the clearance between the engine and the runway is only 40 centimeters, which is a potential hazard when operating at domestic regional airfields. Plus, the landing gear of the aircraft was unsuccessfully assembled, which was one of the reasons for the tragedy at Sheremetyevo with numerous casualties.

At last, quite rightly indicate that for the sake of the "Superjet" was killed promising for its time project Tu-334, which is much more adapted to our conditions. Yes, all this is true, but for the sake of fairness it is worth expressing a number of counterarguments.

If we close the Superjet now, as its critics suggest, then the budget billions spent on it will simply be wasted. And what is the alternative? Yes, the Tu-334 was good enough, but because of the "intrigues" of Poghosyan, who lobbied for his project, his time has passed, many factories where components were produced for it simply ceased to exist. How much will the revival of the Tu-334 cost the country? Will our budget, which is already bursting with falling oil and gas revenues, pull the second short-haul liner?

Yes, it is bad that the engines on the Superjet are located low, as is customary in more developed countries. But, perhaps, instead of designing an "unkillable" aircraft, simply build normal modern airfields throughout Russia? You see, the transport connectivity, conditions for doing business and the general attractiveness of the state for investment and life will improve?

120-130 billion rubles is a very large amount, it is likely that it will grow in the end, and some people can warm their hands quite well on this. But in the end, in addition to the updated liner, the country will receive new production of modern components that can be used in subsequent projects. And most importantly, a new civilian engine PD-8 will be developed. Power plants are our weak point, so the appearance of our own is only worth greeting. As a reminder, in addition to the Superjet, PD-8 will be installed on the Be-200 amphibious aircraft that has no analogues in the world. This "flying boat" can be used in civil and cargo transportation, firefighting, rescue operations, and the Russian Ministry of Defense plans to create anti-submarine aircraft on its basis.

It remains to be hoped that the developers will take into account the wishes of real participants in the air transportation market and create not only a version for 100, but also for 75 seats.
14 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 18 September 2020 15: 06
    0
    Do we need such journalists?
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 September 2020 07: 42
      -2
      "You" is who exactly? An anonymous wage troll hiding behind the numbers 123, who are you trying to speak on behalf of?
      But the professional journalistic community with RIA FAN and, for example, the Zvezda TV channel, has a different opinion.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 19 September 2020 12: 06
        +1
        "You" is who exactly? An anonymous wage troll hiding behind the numbers 123, who are you trying to speak on behalf of?

        For us it is for the readers. A venal and incompetent journalist with reduced social responsibility wants to become personal? After all, there is nothing to object to the facts.

        But the professional journalistic community with RIA FAN and, for example, the Zvezda TV channel, has a different opinion.

        True? Link please?
  2. Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 18 September 2020 16: 06
    -2
    And, all the news sites now have similar articles.
    The much-hyped superjet, under-wunder plane, was not so hot.
    Nobody was clearly responsible, except for those who criticized him. (allegedly, the pilots were fired, the flight attendants, and the designers).
    Medvedev was going to buy Boeings again, but the accident and the virus prevented ...

    So this time Sergey is right. And the plane will not be abandoned, the remaining designers and production workers have to train on someone, and the treasury will cost another two or three billions.

    But on the way like Chinese and Japanese counterparts ...
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 September 2020 07: 34
      -3
      Quote: Sergey Latyshev
      So this time Sergey is right. And the plane will not be abandoned, it is necessary for the remaining designers and production workers to train on someone, and the treasury will fly in another two or three billions.

      Oh, and when I was wrong, if "right now I am right"?
      1. Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 19 September 2020 09: 26
        0
        If the halo is not visible in the mirror, then it happens))))
        Is it visible or not?
  3. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 19 September 2020 00: 19
    -1
    This is better than the nonsense of semi-literate experts.

    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  4. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 19 September 2020 14: 59
    0
    In any case, the aircraft must be made domestically, with domestic engines, while Iran today can and should be offered the domestic Tu-204, and a new anti-submarine aircraft must be urgently made on its basis.
  5. Kuramori Reika Offline Kuramori Reika
    Kuramori Reika (Kuramori Reika) 20 September 2020 02: 09
    +2
    I think the situation with the Tu-334 would have been much, much worse if we had chosen it instead of the SSJ-100.
    At first, we learned that joint production with Europeans and Americans is absolutely not economically profitable. Not only is it unreliable, but also the quality is worse than the Chinese one. Now any topic of joint production with advanced "democrats" is closed, not only in aviation, but also in shipbuilding, rocketry, automotive and locomotive manufacturing. This lesson cost us relatively cheap, but we try Sooner or later would have to.
    Secondly, we have gained extensive experience in the operation and maintenance of such equipment in foreign markets with the support of the "Democrats". Useful knowledge that money can't buy.
    Thirdly, and the demand for the Tu-334 would definitely be? After all, it is more roomy, and in our time people are not particularly in a hurry to fly.
    1. boriz Offline boriz
      boriz (boriz) 20 September 2020 12: 16
      +2
      He's more roomy, ...

      - 102 people. And there is no problem to create options a little + or -, as on other aircraft
  6. Nikolay Malyugin (Nikolai Malyugin) 20 September 2020 09: 33
    +2
    I'll tell you right away. I have no opinion on this car. But there is a lot of criticism from well-informed people, and about this car. And according to the guide. Rather, the professionalism of the leadership.
  7. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 20 September 2020 11: 05
    +1
    As for the Superjet, the answer is unambiguous, it is necessary to bring the matter to the end, when almost everything has been done ... Additional billions will only amount to 10 - 20% of the production of a new aircraft ... especially the main responsible, starting with the Rogozins, for many billions of losses, here the premiums have always been sky-high for the slightest success ... Management of the created vertical economy is its weakest link ... And by name. whatever you call it, it will fly, - superjet is an English name, but it does not fit into the Russian sky ... Sukhoi -100, already more understandable and reliable, based on Su aircraft ...
  8. boriz Offline boriz
    boriz (boriz) 20 September 2020 11: 27
    +4
    But, perhaps, instead of designing an "unkillable" aircraft, simply build normal modern airfields throughout Russia?

    And around the world? The creation of such an aircraft implied export potential. And here and around the world, the planes of regional flights land on not the best airfields of their countries. And an airplane with 75 seats will fly to airfields even worse than the one with 100 seats.
    It is only because of this factor alone that SSJ should be closed.
    And the new engines are not tied to a specific aircraft in any way. They can stand on SSJ and Be 200 and Tu 334.

    Will our budget, which is already bursting with falling oil and gas revenues, pull the second short-haul liner?

    Why second? No need to upgrade SSJ. It is necessary to modernize the Tu 334.
    SSJ, no matter how you upgrade, you will not change the layout. The aircraft is designed as a low-wing aircraft (the wing is attached to the lower part of the fuselage), and the engines are located even below the wing, because are attached to it from below on pylons.
    On the Tu 334, the engines are located at the level of the middle of the fuselage, that is, higher by definition.
    Many regional aircraft are made according to this scheme. Look at the Bombardier CRJ100. There the engines are also at the back and are located even above the middle of the fuselage.
    Poghosyan stupidly copied the Boeing and Airbus schemes, while the Soviet aircraft industry was characterized by the rear-engine layout. Tu 134, Tu 154. And, finally, the Yak 40, at one time, a breakthrough near-regional aircraft. Which could take off (in mountainous regions) from those airfields where jet aircraft did not take off before it, only small piston ones. The Yak 40 is very fond of in Latin America, there are many such mountain airfields. I am in 1972. rested in Adler, there it was clearly seen how the planes take off over the sea. It was very revealing: the Il 18 (then already old) dragged over the sea for a long time, the Tu 134 rose briskly, and the Yak 40 went up almost like a candle.
    Bombardier realized in time and began to produce aircraft according to this scheme, and Poghosyan crossed out what had been accumulated before him and drove the company and the country into losses. Probably because of this he was "asked" to leave. Is now engaged in some kind of astral garbage.
  9. Sergey Verbitsky (Sergey Verbitsky) 21 September 2020 06: 29
    0
    it is necessary to modernize the 204, 334 will be cheaper, on the basis of the 204 it is possible to make various modifications of the airbus type, which will greatly reduce the cost of production of various types for 100 seats 150, 200 seats due to unification.
    super super this is a dead end road. But this is not about the current non-Russian government