How the government itself "puts an end to the global success of the MS-21 airliner


The Russian government decided to allocate huge funds for the development of civil aircraft construction. In the next 10 years, over seven hundred new aircraft and helicopters of various classes are to be built. It would seem that the joy of the cabinet of ministers about the problems of the industry can only be applauded, but still there were dissatisfied, who believe that civilians almost "robbed" the military, and budgetary funds should be directed to the needs of the RF Aerospace Forces. Moreover, some experts believe that the allocated amounts are excessive, if not completely harmful. But is it really so?


Let's first go through the list of what the 1,84 trillion rubles are allocated for. The amount is really impressive, but what will the country get on the way out?

First of all, this is the MS-21, the most promising domestic civilian airliner, our “great white hope”. In the short-haul segment, state support will be given to the Superjet-100 and the Il-114 turboprop. A light aircraft "Baikal" (LMS-901) will be used for regional transportation. Also, Rostec has been tasked with developing 5 models of new multipurpose helicopters. And in total, by 2030, 735 civil aircraft will be produced in the country. So what do we see? Finally, the financial flow went like a river to the restoration of the aircraft building industry. All market niches will be closed, except perhaps the long-haul one. Moreover, according to experts' forecasts, by 2030 the state will be able to return up to 450 billion rubles in taxes. And this is a very positive trend. However, we cannot do without pitfalls.

First, it is worthwhile to deal with the claims that military programs are allegedly "robbed" due to the development of civilians. It's not like that at all. Or rather, not at all. The fact is that funds for the needs of the civil aircraft industry are allocated mainly not from the federal budget, but mainly from the liquid part of the NWF. Yes, this fund invests 1,59 trillion rubles out of 1,84 trillion, and only 244 billion will go from the state budget. That is, it cannot be said that the financing of the MC-21 or Il-114 is carried out at the expense of sequestering the costs of the production of military aircraft. On the contrary, one should be glad that the funds of the NWF are going into the development of the domestic industry, and not into some "wrappers" of foreign securities. But on this, alas, the good news are running out for now.

It should be borne in mind that Russian aircraft will enter the market at a very difficult time. Due to the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, air traffic volumes have dropped sharply, and with them the demand for new airliners has fallen. The MS-21 and the updated Superjet-100 will have to compete with the products of leading Western corporations, which traditionally dominate the world market. While it is quite possible to attach domestic aircraft to airlines within Russia using preferential leasing programs and various methods of persuasion / coercion, this may not work abroad. Where else can we really sell, for example, the medium-haul MS-21? To Belarus? To the CIS countries? In the DPRK and Iran under sanctions? To Venezuela? Perhaps only there, and this on condition that the Irkut corporation has learned from the mistakes of the Superjet and prepares in advance all the infrastructure necessary for post-sale service.

It is necessary to explain why we are so pessimistic about the prospects for the MC-21 and the updated Superjet-100 to enter the wide international market. The problem lies precisely in the 1,8 trillion rubles that the state allocates for the development of civil aviation. The fact is that Russia is still a member of the World Trade Organization, and its norms directly prohibit such support.

Yes, Boeing and Airbus corporations have long been suing each other within the WTO, justifiably accusing each other of hidden government support for the aviation industry. The WTO Court of Appeals found that Boeing received $ 5,3 billion in subsidies from the Pentagon and NASA to develop new models of civilian airliners, including the Boeing 787. The American corporation also benefited from tax breaks provided by several states, which led to deterioration of the competitive position of Airbus. But the European corporation did not remain in debt either. A WTO investigation found that Airbus received about $ 18 billion in under-rate loans and several billion more in so-called "start-up aid" for the A380 project.
This clash of irreconcilable competitors has led to a veritable "war of duties" between the United States and the European Union. This is a very serious matter, with huge sums involved. Boeing and Airbus recently suspended a decades-long trade war to unite against China. The PRC is actively developing its national aircraft industry and has a large domestic market, so Chinese aircraft have good chances of being in demand in Southeast Asia.

But this is not all "air battles" within the WTO. While Boeing and Airbus are fighting in the premium segment, Canadian Bombardier and Brazilian Embraer competed in the segment of short-medium-haul and regional airliners. Bombardier was able to gain a foothold in the market largely thanks to loans and bank guarantees provided to aircraft buyers by the Canadian government export agency (EDC, Export Development Canada). Embraer was able to squeeze it out with the help of state-funded export credit programs PROEX (Programa de Financiamento às Exportações) and the state support program for production and export BNDES-Exim, which provided preferential terms for loans to the aviation industry and guarantees. Despite the fact that the WTO recognized these actions as illegal, both companies continue to receive ongoing financial support.

And now our country jumped headlong into this pit with snakes, which began to finance civil aircraft construction directly from the NWF, without even trying to somehow disguise state support. It is not difficult to guess how it might end. Western corporations will justifiably present claims to Russia within the WTO, which may serve as a pretext for declaring a trade war, as well as a ban on the sale of new domestic aircraft in developed countries.

Thus, the MC-21 has a chance to become a replacement for Boeing and Airbus products only in Russia itself, in the CIS, as well as in several "rogue countries", despite the fact that it is a very good aircraft.
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
    gorenina91 (Irina) 13 July 2021 14: 59
    -15%
    How the government itself "puts an end to the global success of the MS-21 airliner

    - Yes, and he went ... - this MS-21 ... - Everything on it is imported (however - as well as on other newest civil aviation aircraft, which the Russian aviation industry still will not give birth to) ...
    - In short ... -Similar situation, as with Russian football ... - the costs are simply space ... - but no sense ...
    1. Rum rum Offline Rum rum
      Rum rum (Rum rum) 14 July 2021 03: 31
      +2
      Quote: gorenina91
      Yes, and he went ...

      It's impossible, it's so clumsy ...
      1. Alexndr p Offline Alexndr p
        Alexndr p (Alexander) 14 July 2021 09: 25
        +2
        Yes, and he went ... - this MS-21

        poor woman.
        1. Rum rum Offline Rum rum
          Rum rum (Rum rum) 15 July 2021 01: 04
          0
          Blonde, what to take from her ...
  2. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 13 July 2021 15: 00
    +6
    People from Israel, Ukraine, Estonia will come running and explain everything about aircraft construction ... Everyone knows, they've been everywhere (c)
  3. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 13 July 2021 15: 20
    +2
    Yes, let them first satisfy Russian needs! There is a lot of work! And then the CSTO will catch up. By the way, civil aircraft can also be used as military transport aircraft.
    1. Pete mitchell Offline Pete mitchell
      Pete mitchell (Pete Mitchell) 13 July 2021 15: 32
      +3
      Quote: Bulanov
      Yes, let them first satisfy Russian needs! There is a lot of work!

      That's right - if the B737 / A320 is moved on its territory - it will already be a great success.
  4. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 13 July 2021 16: 13
    +3
    I don’t understand what the problem is? request
    US dates aircraft manufacturers, EU dates. sue negotiate, the WTO recognizes these actions as illegal, the caravan goes ...
    Why can't Russia do this?
    Well, let the dissatisfied with the WTO appeal, as far as I remember, there are already no judges left, the new US elections have long been blocked.
    Are you again looking for non-existent problems out of the blue? What you remind of the Rain, they are also constantly drizzling.
  5. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 13 July 2021 17: 28
    -1
    And who really thinks that the Americans, the Chinese, the Japanese or the Europeans will simply let a piece competitor to themselves with bread and salt? without logistics, service, etc.?
    Surely the author also understands everything, but ...
  6. steelmaker Online steelmaker
    steelmaker 13 July 2021 17: 43
    +4
    Stop dreaming about big and light right now! Start small - fill the market with domestic aircraft! This will be a great advertisement for our planes.
  7. Alexander Loginov (Alexander Loginov) 13 July 2021 18: 09
    +1
    In the sense of the article, airplanes and helicopters should be developed free of charge, exclusively at the expense of design bureaus, otherwise the WTO will not allow selling abroad? And it will be, is it the WTO in 2-3 years? Without investments, it is impossible to develop, launch into a series of aircraft and arrange sales financing. Therefore, they are doing everything right. Well, probably, they won't be bought in Europe and the USA, but Africa, Asia and Latin America may well.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 14 July 2021 05: 58
    +2
    The problem is solved simply - by leaving the WTO. In general, joining this organization was a huge mistake.
  10. nikolai.soot Offline nikolai.soot
    nikolai.soot (Nikolay Arbaev) 14 July 2021 07: 45
    -1
    Our civil aviation will be saved by: passenger airliners with super-powerful high-speed high-voltage electric motors from 20000 kW (kVA) and more, which flies from Moscow to Khabarovsk at a supersonic speed of 1200 km / h or more, over the high-voltage power line (0,4 , 10-110-220-330-500-750-1150-1150 kV.) On a laser beam or power transmission line line (5 kW.) A microwave emitter, and an aircraft (airplane, helicopter, airship and others) in a Faraday cage, and unmanned cargo airliner flies at a supersonic speed of 10 to XNUMX thousand km / h and more ....
  11. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 14 July 2021 08: 27
    +2
    Quote: Alexander Loginov
    In the sense of the article, airplanes and helicopters should be developed free of charge, exclusively at the expense of design bureaus, otherwise the WTO will not allow selling abroad? And it will be, is it the WTO in 2-3 years? Without investments, it is impossible to develop, launch into a series of aircraft and arrange sales financing. Therefore, they are doing everything right. Well, probably, they won't be bought in Europe and the USA, but Africa, Asia and Latin America may well.

    This is not in the sense of the article, but in the sense of the WTO. This office was created for this, so that the United States and the EU could promote their interests, pushing competitors.
    Precisely because it is impossible to develop the aviation industry without state support, the US and the EU actually feed their concerns by roundabout ways, violating WTO norms. And we, too, cannot develop the aviation industry without state support.
    The question is, why did we join the WTO then? In the end, the US and the EU agreed between themselves, but no one will give us any discounts. Moreover, we directly violate the WTO norms, even without formal cover. For this we will receive a new tariff war and a ban on access to Western markets.
    Once again: why did we join the WTO if it is harmful for us and fraught with a host of negative consequences? Nobody says that there is no need to finance the aviation industry. It is necessary. Only first, you probably need to leave the WTO?
    Not? Or is it "Dozhd style anti-Russian propaganda"?
    P.S. the WTO is not going anywhere now, it is the brainchild of globalists who returned with Biden. The office had a chance to collapse only under Trump or his associates.
  12. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 14 July 2021 08: 28
    +1
    Quote: Bakht
    The problem is solved simply - by leaving the WTO. In general, joining this organization was a huge mistake.

    Exactly. But on the other hand, it was beneficial for the raw material oligarchs. For them, it was done to the detriment of production workers.
  13. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 14 July 2021 08: 30
    +2
    Quote: gorenina91
    - Yes, and he went ... - this MS-21 ... - Everything on it is imported (however - as well as on other newest civil aviation aircraft, which the Russian aviation industry still will not give birth to) ...

    No, not all, Irina, do not confuse with the Superjet.
    And by the way, the Superjet will also be completely Russified soon, the corresponding program has been adopted.
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. Adler77 Offline Adler77
    Adler77 (Denis) 14 July 2021 08: 40
    +1
    Well, first of all, our country alone will be enough to ensure the loading of factories by 200%. Secondly, after setting up the release, in the event of any restrictions on the sale abroad, it is possible to introduce mirror measures regarding the Boeing or airbus.
    1. Kristallovich Online Kristallovich
      Kristallovich (Ruslan) 14 July 2021 09: 23
      +1
      Our airlines are provided with relatively new aircraft by 90%. They will be enough for another 10-12 years of operation. And given the pandemic and the reduction in the number of flights - and for all 15.
      1. Adler77 Offline Adler77
        Adler77 (Denis) 14 July 2021 09: 51
        +3
        They are not owned, but leased, if ours offer a similar structure, why not? They will change.
        In addition, we all understand that in fact one can only dream of mass production today, and with really sufficient funding, we will see significant volumes of aircraft in 5-7 years.
        1. Kristallovich Online Kristallovich
          Kristallovich (Ruslan) 14 July 2021 14: 24
          0
          if ours offer a similar structure,

          There is no company in Russia capable of leasing hundreds of aircraft.
          1. Adler77 Offline Adler77
            Adler77 (Denis) 14 July 2021 21: 06
            +1
            Hundreds of sides, then no ...
            If there are a hundred boards, then there will be a company.
  16. kriten Offline kriten
    kriten (Vladimir) 14 July 2021 12: 59
    +1
    The author does not understand a simple thing: without providing the domestic market, it is useless to enter the external market. Where do such grief analysts come from on this site. This is not a guardian of the country, but a pest.
    1. Denis Glukhoi Offline Denis Glukhoi
      Denis Glukhoi (Denis Glukhoi) 21 July 2021 11: 36
      0
      there is not only a paralytic here and grief commentators
  17. Every Offline Every
    Every 14 July 2021 15: 31
    +2
    Western corporations will justifiably present claims to Russia within the framework of the WTO, which may serve as a pretext for declaring a trade war, as well as a ban on the sale of new domestic aircraft in developed countries.
    Thus, MC-21 has a chance to become a replacement for Boeing and Airbus products only in Russia itself, in the CIS, as well as in several "rogue countries"

    Boeing and Airbus will try with all their might, including administrative and judicial resources, to squeeze out the MC-21 as a competitor, regardless of whether there were government subsidies or not.
    And without subsidies, the MC-21 will bend and it will not even be on domestic airlines. There will be Boeing and Airbus.
    So the question arises - which is better, to get subsidies and have your own aircraft or to buy Boeing and Airbus abroad? In other words - to stimulate their production or to give foreign producers the opportunity to profit, while killing their own?
    But let's obey the WTO rules like honest and naive fools.
    1. steelmaker Online steelmaker
      steelmaker 14 July 2021 21: 09
      -1
      If the country were ruled by smart and honest people, they would not have entered the WTO either.
  18. Vasil K. Offline Vasil K.
    Vasil K. (Vasil K.) 15 July 2021 11: 07
    +1
    There will be no own goods, someone else will buy expensive ...
  19. Alov Offline Alov
    Alov (Al) 19 July 2021 05: 58
    0
    The Westernizers themselves, led by the United States, are burying the WTO at full speed with their restrictions (which for some reason are called sanctions) and duties. Because in free competition they lose to China. Now we have also started a "song" about ecology ... So it's not that simple, wait and see.
  20. Denis Glukhoi Offline Denis Glukhoi
    Denis Glukhoi (Denis Glukhoi) 21 July 2021 11: 35
    0
    rogue countries make up at least half of the world. it's called "open-ended" ...