Who is sabotaging the Russian aircraft industry?
The problems of the Russian ship Sukhoi Superjet 100 have been known for a long time. This aircraft was planned as a direct competitor of Boeing and Airbus products in the domestic and foreign markets. Its flight range varies from 3000 to 4600 kilometers, which classifies the airliner as regional. Initially, Sukhoi Civil Aircraft voiced ambitious plans for 1300 winged vehicles, but as a result, the number of contracted Sukhoi Superjet 100 barely exceeds four hundred, and only 174 were built.
Claims to the aviation industry in Russia were very capaciously expressed by the head of the Federation Council, Valentina Matvienko:
Let's try to figure out what still went wrong with the SSJ 100? The problems of an unsuccessful airliner should be sought at its source:
At first, not everyone is aware, but Sukhoi Civil Aircraft thought of involving Boeing itself in the development of a competitor for Boeing. At a certain stage, the American aircraft manufacturing company withdrew from the project, even refusing to pay “royalties” for its “copyright”.
SecondlyAs has been said many times, Sukhoi Superjet 100 consists of 77% imported components. Moreover, suppliers are our “friends and partners” from the UK and France. In particular, 34% of components are a French-made SaM146 turbofan engine, 43% are French avionics and interior elements from British manufacturers.
Strange as it may seem, the French engines are most of the questions. Instead of guaranteed 7500-8000 hours of flight, they sometimes require repair after 2000 to 4000 hours, or even after 1000. Because of the need to constantly repair engines, the average flying time per day of the Sukhoi Superjet 100 does not exceed 3,3 hours. For comparison, Boeing and Airbus have 10 hours.
What is wrong with the SaM146?
These aircraft engines are produced in Russia in a joint production with the French company Safran. Everything could be blamed on the “Russian assembly”, but premature aging of the metal and the appearance of cracks occur in the “hot part” of the engine, for which the French partners are responsible. It looks like a design error, which is very strange for a reputable company that produces high-quality power plants for Rafal fighters and the European heavy launch vehicle.
The second oddity is that Safran installs the SaM146 only on the Russian Sukhoi Superjet 100. It is also suggested that they be used as part of the “import substitution” on Be-200 amphibious aircraft.
The third complaint against the French is the unhurriedness of the supply of spare parts for the repair of failed aircraft engines, due to which the process can be delayed for months.
All this looks like sabotage of a project in order to discredit American and French competitors at all its stages. However, what else was to be expected from capitalist predators? Questions should arise for those who let the fox into the chicken coop. Indeed, our own authorities have been carrying out hidden sabotage against the Russian aircraft industry for a long time.
For example, there was a very interesting project of the wide-body airliner Il-96-300. On someone's "good advice" in the project they planned to use American engines from Pratt and Whitney. However, a company from the United States, under pressure from Boeing, refused to deliver to Russia. As a result, the airliner began to be manufactured with domestic engines, but the Russian government lifted duties on the purchase of imported aircraft in the same category of airliners with a passenger capacity of over 300 people. As a result, the domestic market was flooded with Boeing-767, and a total of 76 Russian-made IL-26s.
Today, the promising MS-21 airliner, half of which will be equipped with American aircraft engines, jumps on the same rake with imported components.
Claims to the aviation industry in Russia were very capaciously expressed by the head of the Federation Council, Valentina Matvienko:
Why can't a great aviation country develop a normal regional passenger plane? So they made the Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ 100), but who needs it? It is not suitable for regional transportation. At Aeroflot, he stands on board. Nobody buys abroad. The plane is actually 80%, if not more, foreign.
Let's try to figure out what still went wrong with the SSJ 100? The problems of an unsuccessful airliner should be sought at its source:
At first, not everyone is aware, but Sukhoi Civil Aircraft thought of involving Boeing itself in the development of a competitor for Boeing. At a certain stage, the American aircraft manufacturing company withdrew from the project, even refusing to pay “royalties” for its “copyright”.
SecondlyAs has been said many times, Sukhoi Superjet 100 consists of 77% imported components. Moreover, suppliers are our “friends and partners” from the UK and France. In particular, 34% of components are a French-made SaM146 turbofan engine, 43% are French avionics and interior elements from British manufacturers.
Strange as it may seem, the French engines are most of the questions. Instead of guaranteed 7500-8000 hours of flight, they sometimes require repair after 2000 to 4000 hours, or even after 1000. Because of the need to constantly repair engines, the average flying time per day of the Sukhoi Superjet 100 does not exceed 3,3 hours. For comparison, Boeing and Airbus have 10 hours.
What is wrong with the SaM146?
These aircraft engines are produced in Russia in a joint production with the French company Safran. Everything could be blamed on the “Russian assembly”, but premature aging of the metal and the appearance of cracks occur in the “hot part” of the engine, for which the French partners are responsible. It looks like a design error, which is very strange for a reputable company that produces high-quality power plants for Rafal fighters and the European heavy launch vehicle.
The second oddity is that Safran installs the SaM146 only on the Russian Sukhoi Superjet 100. It is also suggested that they be used as part of the “import substitution” on Be-200 amphibious aircraft.
The third complaint against the French is the unhurriedness of the supply of spare parts for the repair of failed aircraft engines, due to which the process can be delayed for months.
All this looks like sabotage of a project in order to discredit American and French competitors at all its stages. However, what else was to be expected from capitalist predators? Questions should arise for those who let the fox into the chicken coop. Indeed, our own authorities have been carrying out hidden sabotage against the Russian aircraft industry for a long time.
For example, there was a very interesting project of the wide-body airliner Il-96-300. On someone's "good advice" in the project they planned to use American engines from Pratt and Whitney. However, a company from the United States, under pressure from Boeing, refused to deliver to Russia. As a result, the airliner began to be manufactured with domestic engines, but the Russian government lifted duties on the purchase of imported aircraft in the same category of airliners with a passenger capacity of over 300 people. As a result, the domestic market was flooded with Boeing-767, and a total of 76 Russian-made IL-26s.
Today, the promising MS-21 airliner, half of which will be equipped with American aircraft engines, jumps on the same rake with imported components.
Information