Military Review

The hazy future of the Russian aircraft industry

187

Strictly speaking, the problems of modern Russian aviation and the aircraft industry was not only lazy. There are many broken copies. However, a certain (quite obvious) aspect of this problem is somehow less popular. Either the experts themselves on this topic do not speak out frankly, or only PR people speak on this topic. Or something else ... So let's get started.


The illusion of Soviet cheapness


For some reason, there was such a stereotype: the Soviet military-industrial complex as a whole and specifically the aviation industry were super-efficient and gave an excellent result quite cheaply. But this is how to say ... The Soviet economy was very specific, and it was practically very difficult, if not impossible, to calculate someone's specific costs / contribution to it.

And the defense industry was the core of that very economy. The whole country worked primarily for the military; to say at the same time that its military (the aviation industry was primarily military) industry worked "cheaply" is somewhat presumptuous.

There, in fact, gigantic funds have been poured in on a priority basis since the 30s. Well, there was a result. There was aviation, and aviation design bureaus, and aircraft factories, and everything worked.

Now I would like to especially point out the allegedly low salaries of Soviet aviation engineers in comparison with American ones. But how to say ... Our country as a whole was much poorer, and therefore everything is relative. Stalin did not spare money for aviation. And the pay from aircraft designers by Soviet standards was quite interesting. Further, the paychecks were no longer so interesting, but any aircraft plant, aviation design bureau under Soviet conditions is a separate state with separate supplies and funding (much better than the average for a hospital). And you won't really go to America, although some have tried.

And the Soviet social package in the aircraft industry was very interesting. Here you have both free apartments and food supplies, and a lot of things ... And I must also say the following: after all, a very different number of specialists worked on the same project in the USSR and the USA (for the Soviets much more), while the level of the average Soviet aviation engineer was slightly lower. Something like this.

In the 70s we loved to rant in smoking rooms, how much such engineers get in America. "They are like that" - not at all. Because "there" "such" specialists were not interesting to anyone (for the most part). So to say that the new aircraft cost the USSR a mere penny is somewhat bold. Costly enough. This is if we count all costs according to the normal scheme, and not according to the "magic Soviet" one, where prices were often drawn from the ceiling.

And in general, given the isolation of the Soviet and American economies, it is rather stupid to recount something directly, but, as you might guess, the creation of a new model of aircraft consumed a much larger part of the Soviet budget in comparison with the American one. The reason is simple: America is a much richer country and more advanced as well. They initially have more resources and technologies, and we want to show ourselves. And besides, they had and still have a powerful [/ i] civil private [/ i] aircraft industry.

That is, a private trader spins up the aviation industry (and all components, such as instrument making and engine building) at his own expense, while paying taxes. And we need to do all this from scratch, at the expense of the state. So calculate the profitability and cost. And in the end, at the expense of the state, we must produce a lot of everything technically complex and surpassing our current level. And at the same time, with the termination of state funding, production immediately collapses!

Well, where is the cheapness? And Roosevelt (unlike Stalin) could simply order a thousand new bombers from a private owner. And do not worry about producing gliders for them, or about aircraft engines. Something like this. And don't worry about aviation kerosene. And about the training of personnel for the aviation industry. And Churchill could, and Hitler, and even Hirohito, albeit not as pretentious as that of the Americans, but in peacetime they could well. In wartime, certain problems with resources began. Everyone has their own.

In the USSR, everything was state


Exactly! And it had both its pluses and certain minuses. After 1991, the aviation industry predictably went into a dive. What kind of business? What are the international markets? They have been working in the state system all their lives and are not used to working differently. As they joked about Antonov in the epoch of "independence": this is an air carrier that pretends to be an aircraft manufacturer.

The Russian Federation had some opportunities to maintain the trousers of the aviation industry. The results are pretty miserable. Controversial, so to speak, results. In fact, all "aircraft manufacturers" continued to circle around the beefy Russian budget. Nobody got on the "commercial wing". All statements about “having no analogues in the world” should be divided by ten.

The civil aircraft industry simply bent over. The military seems to be moving slightly ... Damn it? You can't just order a batch of planes from time to time. Design bureaus, aircraft factories, and subcontractors need to eat something every day, and neither one nor the other may remain for the next order. And this becomes a problem. Because they know how to feed only and exclusively from the budget. Commercial contracts allow you to grab money (not everyone!), But without constant government funding, everything immediately collapses and collapses.

In principle, our aircraft builders do not know how to live on "grazing". Nobody taught them this and did not set such tasks for them. USSR for its history managed to "hammer" monstrous resources into the aviation industry, which is why today we are selling something there for billions of dollars. But technology is advancing, the competition is growing.

And, by the way, the very ability of Russian producers to fight for foreign contracts raises big questions. They were not taught this, and they do not know how. All their activities often boil down to a powerful PR and a subsequent attack on the Russian budget. All.

Tale about "Superjet"


Perhaps the most "thoughtful" and "competent" project. In the 90s and later, sheer hell was going on in the country, and Moscow heating engineers suddenly took up naval ballistic missiles, while the Sukhovites (suddenly!) - civil aviation. Look where you threw them ... By the way, it is not clear why. They also had military contracts. Why did they have this hemorrhoid? This is never a close direction and not adjacent. There is not much in common between a fighter and a short-haul liner. Sukhoi civil aircraft ... That way, modestly, but with dignity.

The main complaint about the Sukhoi is that the plane was not very technical. I know there are crowds of trolls roaming the Internet claiming otherwise. Foaming at the mouth of those who affirm. With figures, facts and accusations of dislike for the domestic aviation industry. The problem is that Superjet has practically nothing to do with the domestic aviation industry. Solyanka.

The design quality is average, to put it mildly. "I blinded him from what was." Why was this all started? What for? Having no experience in this kind of activity? What does fighter aircraft design have to do with short-haul aircraft design? Once again: the main question is that the project itself is “not a fountain” unambiguously. Not a masterpiece and not even a strong middling.

And for ten years we have been foaming at the mouth ... It would be better to spend this energy on designing the aircraft itself. And further: to the question about almost completely imported "packaging" we were cleverly explained about the "need for international certification."

Moreover, initially this project was presented almost as an international commercial one. Say, there will be investments, the whole world will integrate, and where are you with your "Sovdep" Tu-334? And here we will have a super-modern super-aircraft made according to the latest world technologies, and almost with the money of investors (non-state!). You, most importantly, do not meddle and do not interfere ... if you do not understand. It was, it was, there is no need to shyly look away ...

International cooperation, integration and foreign investment, the result is a magical "Superjet". And smart talk about международний the market of passenger air transportation.

The last international operator refused the Superjet. Demonstrative. And the S-7 company demonstratively refused a 75-seat model. And the attempt to sell Superjets to "brotherly Iran" ran into the American embargo on "completing" the "Russian" airplane. And all the money spent on the project is government money. Or private ... but borrowed!

And what do we have at the end?

Patriots and budget


You know, gloomy thoughts cover when thinking about the future of the Russian aircraft industry. Presses and oppresses. The Soviet backlog is ending. The political, economic, scientific and technical capabilities of modern Russia cannot be compared with the Soviet ones. The Russian market is, as it were, small for serious aircraft production, alas. Both for the military and for the civilian.

The trouble is that our "manufacturers" are somehow not very ready either for the market or for international competition. Not ready at all. They know how to work only and exclusively according to the Soviet scheme. They still see the main money in the Russian budget. And nothing else. That is why no one was going to make candy out of the Superjet. What for? That is why a spare parts warehouse, etc. was not created for it.

The main money is in the Russian budget. And with commerce ... somehow it did not work. I remember the "incomprehensible" deliveries of substandard fighters to Algeria ... I remember a lot of things. People are quite ready to rivet a "prototype" for several years on budget money, which will never go into series. What the state paid for, they did. The "magic seaplane" Be-200 also turned out to be of no use to anyone abroad. And how much pathos there was ...

There, it seems, the Russian state generously allocated money for as many as 6 pieces of MiG-35, well, there was a "wheelhouse" around them. And even on the pages of "VO". Six pieces. At the same time, yes, at the same time it was announced that the Indians are supposedly ready to take almost a hundred ... they are at a low start. But the MiG is a living legend. Or not alive anymore?

Sukhoi is doing relatively well ... Precisely because in the 90s he pulled over the blanket of the state order. There are no miracles. But our budget is not rubber. You see, this is what kills: complete inability наших aircraft manufacturers "master" non-Russian money (the management system of the aviation industry is a separate topic). Given the current size of the Russian economy, this is a verdict.

There will never be a return to the USSR, it's time to put up with it. And in the new conditions, no one has learned to work. To build a strategy on the fact that "sooner or later" the state will have a lot, a lot of money (like Tsar Midas) is at least naive, and to rivet one and a half aircraft a year is somewhat strange. So what's the strategy, brother?

Our aviation industry was created with unlimited funding from a superpower. Our aviation industry had a lot of factories and crowds of people. Our aviation industry had one main customer. And now she is trying to shrink and survive. And we will make you five planes, order!

You know, something in this sentence is confusing. Slightly. That is, the approach “we are in a difficult situation, we need to sign anything and receive funding, and where the curve will take it out” can hardly be called honest and reasonable.

In fact, the Soviet aviation industry was very, very expensive, it was just that money was not considered to be counted. But now, all of a sudden, it all came out. The situation is anecdotal: if under the USSR we produced up to a thousand civilian aircraft a year, now we are doing 90-120. Everyone. Both civilians and military.

And the United Aircraft Corporation has growing debts. Which, in general, is not surprising. I will say more (yes, any adequate analyst would say it): in such a scenario, the debts will grow almost like the United States. With such a discrepancy between the size of the enterprise (operating costs) and "exhaust".

No cosmetic reforms can change this. For 100 aircraft a year, a certain megastructure is slightly redundant. This is what one manufacturer can do. The trouble with our aircraft manufacturers is that they did not grow out of small private firms built on economy and personal initiative, but grew in the style of bureaucratic state offices. Any specialist who is familiar with any production "here" and "there" will confirm that in similar industries "they have" much less and salaries much above.

And in today's "half-strangled" state, these very "Russian aircraft manufacturers" are still able to master money, but they are no longer able to issue new aircraft. Budget funding goes to operating costs and the production of semi-finished products, such as Superjet and Il-112. It's not that they don't want better - they can't. And even if today, for the sake of a joke, the aviation industry is flooded with money, most likely there will be no outstanding results.

In general, they are the very ones, these "dolphin and mermaid", "Superjet" and IL-112, vividly and vividly represent the results of work on two options: "large international cooperation" and "fine-tuning of Soviet groundwork." And that, and another does not please the eye. Alas.

The hazy future of the Russian aircraft industry
Author:
Photos used:
i.ytimg.com
Articles from this series:
Why do our rockets fall, but the planes fail
187 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. smart ass
    smart ass 22 July 2020 05: 42
    35 th
    Mc21 should have been banned after people burned out
    1. Errr
      Errr 22 July 2020 06: 47
      32
      Quote: Clever man
      Mc21 should have been banned after people burned out
      Burned out in the Superjet, but to ban the MS-21? Why's that?
      1. Stas157
        Stas157 22 July 2020 08: 35
        17
        Well, an article!
        The USSR is bad. Russia is bad. America is good!

        Our country as a whole was much poorer ...

        Америка much richer country and more advanced besides

        So much? The USSR was firmly in second place in terms of the main economic indicator of GDP, and in first place in terms of some indicators.

        production semi-finished products, such as: "Superjet"

        The Superjet is a great plane (name a classmate who would have been better than the Superjet when the Superjet entered the market?). But what is connected with the terms of purchase (loans), service, maintenance, repairs and spare parts is disgusting. Therefore, the plane is good, but its ownership is expensive, due to circumstances beyond the control of the plane itself. Nevertheless, 200 units have already been built, if not for this, there could have been more.

        By the way, our hope is that the MS-21, a technically advanced aircraft, will also face similar problems as the Superjet. I would not like a sad story about how a wonderful aircraft could not be fully realized due to disgusting after-sales service.
        1. alecsis69
          alecsis69 23 July 2020 21: 30
          +5
          I suggest sending the author to his beloved America for good, so that he does not suffer here.
        2. shonsu
          shonsu 24 July 2020 15: 26
          0
          By the way. I don't know how true, but I read that the maintenance is just bad due to the supply of foreign spare parts. Some kind of constant bureaucratic delays arise.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  2. avia12005
    avia12005 22 July 2020 05: 57
    28
    Very superficial. The state exists in order to regulate the market and promote the products of its manufacturer. What's good for Boeing, good for America, remember? It is not our aviation industry that is to blame; it is the government personnel who are to blame.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 22 July 2020 06: 06
      +9
      It is not our aviation industry that is to blame; it is the government personnel who are to blame.

      Don't forget Russia has been squeezed out and is being squeezed out of the sales markets for civilian aircraft ... getting back into the market is a very difficult task.
      Here the state should behave like in a war ... use all its resources to create its own market ... well, at least now in Africa ... without any regard to the United States and Europe.
      If this is not done, we will simply be devoured by damned competitors.
      1. avia12005
        avia12005 22 July 2020 06: 07
        14
        It is advisable to rename our Ministry of Industry and Trade into the Ministry of Empty Promises.
      2. Maki Avellevich
        Maki Avellevich 22 July 2020 06: 35
        +1
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        Here the state should behave like in a war ... use all its resources to create its own market ... well, at least now in Africa ... without any regard to the United States and Europe.

        What if this "look back" looks like the shares of competitors' companies, for example?
      3. Gardamir
        Gardamir 22 July 2020 07: 27
        14
        Here the state must behave like in a war ... use all its resources to create its own market
        I fully support here. that's just whether we have a state or just a sawing team.
      4. smart ass
        smart ass 22 July 2020 07: 40
        +3
        It's so easy to cover up your inability to use the ubiquitous State Department
      5. Zeev zeev
        Zeev zeev 22 July 2020 07: 43
        +5
        The USSR once created such a parallel market for civil aircraft. And what is interesting, it is in the countries of Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. Only this is the matter ... This "market" was held by generous Soviet loans (which no one ever returned) and the complete absence of competition (the customers of Soviet airliners could not afford to buy Western technology, some for political reasons, and some for banal lack of currency), did not bring money, and after the collapse of the USSR, it was quickly blown away.
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 22 July 2020 07: 58
          +6
          This "market" was supported by generous Soviet loans

          What "Soviet credits" forced the Polish government to fly the Tu-154M already this century?
          1. Zeev zeev
            Zeev zeev 22 July 2020 08: 12
            +6
            The lack of money in the budget of the Polish government for the purchase of new aircraft forced to fly on the Tu-154M. The LOT airline (state-owned) abandoned Soviet aircraft for a long time.
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 22 July 2020 09: 52
              +3
              Quote: ZeevZeev
              The LOT airline (state-owned) abandoned Soviet aircraft for a long time.

              Boeing 787 - 6 units.
              Boeing 737-400 - 3 pieces.
              Embraer 195 - 6 pieces.
              Embraer 175 - 12 pieces.
              Embraer 170 - 10 pieces. A total of 37 cars.
              International flights are operated to the airports of such cities: Riga, Tallinn, Vilnius, Palanga, Milan, Amsterdam, Munich, Athens, Prague, Barcelona, ​​Paris, Beirut, Rome, Berlin, Helsinki, Brussels, Frankfurt am Main, Budapest, Nice, Bucharest, Vienna, Venice, London, Hamburg, Dublin, Istanbul, Dusseldorf, Geneva, Zagreb, Copenhagen, Larnaca, Lyon, New York, Ljubljana, Madrid, Manchester, Newark, Oslo, Sofia, Stockholm, Tel Aviv, Toronto, Zurich, Chicago.
        2. bayard
          bayard 22 July 2020 11: 23
          12
          Quote: ZeevZeev
          This "market" was supported by generous Soviet loans (which no one returned)

          Soviet loans were not gifts, they were simply issued to friendly countries either at a very low interest rate, or it was generally an interest-free loan - a loan for development.
          And how is their Western leasing (since we are talking about aviation) different from the Soviet loan?
          By the way, the planes were more often sold for real money.
          And those loans that were stuck after the collapse of the USSR were loans with deferred payment - their maturity should have begun in the early 90s. All those countries (former colonies) that we helped create states, train personnel, build an economy with our loans, from the beginning of the 90s had to start repaying their loans. Usually this was done by delivering certain products, raw materials or directly by currency transfers at the exchange rate (loans were in rubles).
          So by issuing loans, the Soviet Union invested in its future, where in the present, all allocated credit funds were used to pay for DOMESTIC goods (machinery, equipment, materials, technology, food, etc.) and remained in the USSR, and in the future all these amounts had to return to the USSR in the form of trade supplies (at the expense of debt), or directly in the form of hard currency.
          Western banks and large corporations do the same. request Someone simply deprived us of the opportunity to recover our investments, and part of the debts had to be written off, BUT (!) In exchange for commensurate preferences (oil and ore deposits, lucrative contracts for Russian companies, etc.), but some of these loans really turned out to be "non-repayable "due to the insolvency of the client (the same Cuba). But the cancellation of such debts has unblocked mutual trade ... These losses can be considered a payment for stupidity and betrayal.
          And you shouldn't give a damn about the Soviet aviation industry (as the author did, albeit with reservations), many products were very competitive - primarily transport aircraft: An-12, An-22, Il-76, An-124. Passenger aircraft Tu-154, Il-62 were very good and reliable for their time, and the inefficiency of engines was largely offset by the cheapness of fuel at that time.
          The IL-96 with American engines was more economical than all of its competitors at that time, but the Boeing lobby and the US administration killed this project on takeoff.
          Unfair competition ?
          Of course .
          To this day, Boeing and Airbus have monopoly on it in the world.
          Take an interest in the history of the NK-93 propeller-driven engine, with a thrust of 18 tons, in terms of efficiency, noise and emission of harmful substances (as well as the degree of bypass), no engine has yet come close to it.
          Such engines were going to be installed on the IL-96. The speed would have dropped slightly to 800 - 850 km / h, but the efficiency, range and comfort / low noise would have left competitors no chance.
          On the Tu-204 \ 214, they also proposed to put them. As well as a whole line of transport aircraft.
          Where is this miracle engine?
          Eleven pieces still seem to be in the warehouse, but under a terrible ban ... But at that time (the beginning of the 100s) a production line was ready, capable of producing XNUMX such engines per year!
          So don't talk about "non-competitiveness". The Soviet Union was knocked out of the saddle at the start of the incredible takeoff of its aircraft industry. On the way, we had not only competitive, but really breakthrough engines (one of them was heroically brought to the test finals - this is NK-93), very good aircraft: Yak-42, Il-96, worked on the first (but never took place ) with his Airbus Antonov Design Bureau - for 300 - 350 people. with two engines of 25 tons each, the Tu-204 appeared, which turned out to be overweight, but continued work on it, everything could be fixed.
          And flights by Aeroflot planes in the USSR were available even for students.
          1. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 22 July 2020 14: 32
            +1
            Quote: bayard
            Eleven pieces still seem to be in the warehouse, but under a terrible ban ... But at that time (the beginning of the 100s) a production line was ready, capable of producing XNUMX such engines per year!

            They lay until recently, but where they are now is not known.
            1. bayard
              bayard 22 July 2020 15: 56
              +1
              Quote: tihonmarine
              They lay until recently, but where they are now is not known.

              It's a pity .
              "Saffron" was very interested in this subject, but they did not succeed ...
              If competitors are taken away, wait for the next breakthrough in their aviation industry ... For such a crime, one should hang on the gates of the Spasskaya Tower.

              ... These wretched even post-war An-2 cannot be restored in production.
              And he is needed.
              1. Lepsik
                Lepsik 22 July 2020 18: 51
                0
                --These poor even post-war An-2

                Are you talking about KB Antonov? Duck svidomitye under the thumb of the State Department destroyed their industry.
                Now only live corn.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 22 July 2020 19: 50
                  +6
                  They tried to organize the resumption of the assembly of the An-2 in Russia. Both in its previous form with a new engine, and in an updated one - with a carbon fiber wing. The result is zero.
                  Now there is a desire to build an updated An-2 in Primorye ... with two low-power engines on the upper wing belay ... the result is likely to be the same.
                  We bought the plant and the license for the L-410 from the Czechs ... so many years passed that an entire fleet could be built. And such planes are badly needed for local airlines.
                  What are all these defective managers to call?
                  And it's not about some breakthrough models - about the simplest and even ... "shabby" (forgive me the old man An-2).
                  HOW (!!!) not to cope with this?
                  We don't have any planes for local airlines.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 22 July 2020 17: 17
            -3
            "By the way, planes were often sold for real money." During the entire existence of the USSR, he sold only 7 civilian aircraft for money, the rest was sold and presented for barter and loyalty.
            1. bayard
              bayard 22 July 2020 20: 30
              +4
              Quote: Vadim237
              During the entire existence of the USSR, he sold only 7 civil aircraft for money

              Don't fantasize so wildly.
              Quote: Vadim237
              the rest was sold and given away for barter and loyalty.

              What do you think is barter?
              These are counter deliveries. In which the USSR was interested in much more than just money.
              Cuba supplied raw sugar to the USSR, and as a result, ALL refined sugar in the USSR was from the magnificent Cuban cane (which many did not know). Mutual trade was accounted for in transferable rubles. And so with most of the socialist and friendly countries.
              This is trade.
              For money .
              For rubles.
              And the enterprises received their rubles.
              But the trade itself was conducted by the State in the person of its foreign trade departments and the relevant ministry.
              The USSR was one giant corporation.
              And if the state gave something for
              Quote: Vadim237
              loyalty.

              , then it was justified by the state interests.
              The USSR was not bankrupt at the time of its death.
              He did not have huge external - "unrecoverable" debts. The external debt of the USSR was about 100 billion dollars. , while they owed us several times more.
              There were structural problems associated with the ineffectiveness of total government planning of practically everything, which led to distortions in the production and distribution (through trade networks) of consumer goods.
              The deficit was artificial - a consequence of a conspiracy of the trade mafia on the eve of the controlled destruction of the state. Elite conspiracy.

              And our aviation was good. Only it was designed for the domestic market. Export supplies were an option, we did not fight for world markets - the ideology was different.
              And economical engines appeared by the end of the 80s, and truly competitive and even breakthrough ones were supposed to appear by the early-mid 90s. Prior to this, civil aviation used exclusively military developments.
              The same D-30 that was on the Tu-134, Tu-154, Il-62, Il-76 ... this is the engine from the MiG-31.
              With all the resulting economy.
              But what unification fellow lol
              And fuel in the Land of Soviets was CHEAP.
              Even gasoline at gas stations. yes
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 23 July 2020 00: 51
                -4
                No fantasy - it's true. Have an equivalent exchange, we have them planes factories factories specialists weapons machines court food - they give us sugar cane and other coconuts what transferable rubles the USSR needed foreign currency as air, since only in capital countries he could buy the necessary equipment for grain and consumer goods even using third countries for similar purchases.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 23 July 2020 08: 38
                  0
                  Oooh how everything is running ...
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  The USSR needed foreign currency like air

                  For the balance of trade with Western countries, we had enough trade in gas and oil - to this day, nothing has changed.
                  But the Soviet Union traded with half the world for RUBLES.
                  Transferable \ non-cash.
                  And as a rule, he was vigilant about the trade balance, trying to sell as much as he bought the goods of each particular country.
                  And this was a worldwide practice, up to that. when the currency of one of the states received the status of an international unit of account.
                  I'm talking about the dollar, of course.
                  But with half of the world, we then traded FOR RUBLES.
                  And now it often happens the same.
                  When trading with India, we are gradually switching to rubles (and rupees at the exchange rate). The Indians buy our weapons for rubles, which they help out in our market with the supply of tea, medicines, textiles and other ... electronics, by the way ...
                  The party bosses of petrodollars would steal less, the USSR in general would roll in chocolate.
                  ... And in general, do you have any idea how many Soviet aircraft were operated abroad?
                  And gave everything? belay lol laughing
              2. Zloyxirurg
                Zloyxirurg 23 July 2020 12: 00
                0
                Bravo! There is almost nothing to add!
              3. Mikhail Ya2
                Mikhail Ya2 27 July 2020 08: 34
                0
                In a country with so much sugar beet growing, Cuban cane was not needed. He was taken / purchased exclusively to support Cuba, because apart from him, nothing was produced there.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 27 July 2020 09: 39
                  +1
                  Quote: Mikhail Ya2
                  In a country with so much sugar beet growing, Cuban cane was not needed.

                  What's true is true. They took from Cuba what she could supply. And there was an interesting case, when the first dry cargo ship with raw cane sugar in jute bags arrived from Cuba, no one knew what to do with it - they unloaded it right on the pier ... the warehouses are not ready, it is not clear to whom and where to take it ... , it started raining, turning into a downpour. The strongest. And streams of sugar syrup flowed down the pier into the sea ... The whole batch was so lost.
                  An eyewitness to this, one of the leading experts in the sugar industry of the Union, told me this in colors. He was then responsible for Cuba and rebuilt (under his leadership) the entire sugar industry of Cuba for the interests of the USSR.
                  The best Soviet sugar, refined sugar, was made exclusively from Cuban raw sugar. Such quality was not obtained from beets, but what was obtained was more expensive - either squeeze juice from cane, evaporate - raw sugar. Refined - white refined sugar and powder. And from beets there are so many production cycles, so much stench, so many stages of cleaning and refining ... No. such a stench in production ...
                  In short, as comrade Nekrasov told me: "The best sugar can only be from cane." And we had this sugar.
                  But there was also one - brownish-yellowish, 78 kopecks each ... But everyone tried to take refined sugar at 82 kopecks. yes
      6. georgiigennadievitch
        georgiigennadievitch 22 July 2020 14: 19
        +1
        You are right. But there is only one way out: to make good and relatively inexpensive planes 1) First for yourself; 2) And then other countries (India, Indonesia, Iran, etc.) will be interested. For our largest country in the world, development aviation has not only economic, but also political and geopolitical significance. Therefore, the creation of G.A. We need, first of all, ourselves. Moreover, a varied fleet, from intercontinental liners to modern "maize". Technologically, all this is achievable. So we need political will and appropriate funding.
    2. Hagen
      Hagen 22 July 2020 06: 22
      +6
      Quote: avia12005
      It is not our aviation industry that is to blame; it is the government personnel who are to blame.

      I think, looking for those responsible for the current state of the aviation industry, given the information that is openly available, is a futile business. It does not happen that people, raised in one country on average under equal conditions, perform feats in one industry, while in another they show complete stupidity. So the author shows that if with the advice they could build something, then today the entire aviation industry is sheer dullness. They can't do one thing, they haven't learned the other. It seems to me that such an opinion is very superficial, not immersed in the depth of the topic, and therefore the topic itself has not been disclosed. We slipped back to the level "everything is fine there, we are not capable of this." In fact, we see a more complex picture. With the fifth column in the country's governing system in the 90s, with the direct pushing of the products of a private foreign manufacturer with all the power of the state, with non-fulfillment of contracts and interruption of integration chains in international trade. And with the actual trade and economic war of all against all, not mentioning its impact on the sectors involved, it seems to me, is not entirely professional for a writing journalist. In general, the quality of journalistic work has been somehow declining recently ... It's regrettable ..
    3. Andrew Matseevsky
      Andrew Matseevsky 12 October 2020 03: 22
      0
      The origins said "what is good for General Motors is good for America and what is good for America is good for General Motors."
  3. Fedorov
    Fedorov 22 July 2020 05: 59
    +2
    Article - like everything is gone. Of course there is a sense. But not so rude. Russia is one of the countries that can and knows how to build and produce aircraft. And you can count them on your fingers.
    1. 210ox
      210ox 22 July 2020 07: 05
      12
      No, the article is not about that. And about the alleged superiority of the capitalist system over socialism. The aircraft industry is like a link.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 22 July 2020 08: 42
        -1
        Quote: 210ox
        No, the article is not about that.

        I noticed the same. Especially cut was the comparison of engineers in favor of the Pendos. Nicely licked. It would be better for the author to continue pouring dirt on Belarus, and not to climb into the aircraft industry.
        1. Olezhek
          22 July 2020 09: 02
          +1
          I noticed the same. Especially cut was the comparison of engineers in favor of the Pendos. Nicely licked.


          And to you dear, I would recommend spending time studying the development of mechanics in the 20th century.
          (shipbuilding, automotive, aircraft, etc.)
          And find out who was in the lead. In design and production.
          An interesting topic, by the way.

          It's easy to do cheap propaganda.
          In terms of mechanical engineering (whether we like it or not), the United States is the number one country in the 20th century.
          request
          1. pavelty
            pavelty 22 July 2020 09: 41
            +1
            I'm sorry, I didn't understand from the article why the MS-21 project does not suit you, it has its drawbacks, but Irkut is working on them ... or the photo is not the topic)
            1. shahor
              shahor 22 July 2020 13: 47
              +4
              Quote: pavlentiy
              but Irkut is working on them ..

              The essence of the article is not about what Irkut is working on. The bottom line is that Irkut is developing the aircraft at the expense of the state budget. And he also expects to sell for state funds, hoping for leasing companies that are financed by the state. Those. The state itself finances the development, and buys from itself. It is clear that there was no sane feasibility study and there is no, the economic effect is on the verge of loss. The fate of the aircraft is understandable, perhaps a good one. It will be sold in quantities that do not cover the development and production costs. And so it goes throughout the industry. And this is the tragedy of the Russian aviation industry.
          2. begemot20091
            begemot20091 22 July 2020 09: 50
            0
            one of my university classmates is the chief engine manager for a private space firm. and nothing that for his appointment to this position it was necessary to move "advanced" American engineers. And so in all American companies. It is a pity of course, but a fact.
          3. Cottodraton
            Cottodraton 22 July 2020 10: 50
            +1
            What criteria did you use to identify that it was the United States that was leading? From the books that THEIR authors have written? If you like it, you don't need a soft sign ... an expert in mechanical engineering should know such little things ...
            1. begemot20091
              begemot20091 22 July 2020 11: 48
              -1
              but these comrades have only one criterion: the United States must go! And the rest is the principle of writing - I write as I hear. Or (in common people) what I saw on the fence, I write about that.
            2. Vadim237
              Vadim237 22 July 2020 17: 27
              -3
              In the aircraft industry, the United States was in the lead since the 60s X 20, X 15, XB70, SR 71, Boeing 737, Boeing 747, C 5.
              1. Lepsik
                Lepsik 22 July 2020 18: 53
                -1
                Rather, they could not catch up with the Tu-95, Tu-160, MiG-31
              2. Cottodraton
                Cottodraton 24 July 2020 04: 54
                -1
                Profanity and nonsense. A set of aircraft brands, an incomprehensible date and an unfounded statement ...
          4. Octopus
            Octopus 22 July 2020 11: 32
            -1
            )))
            It is not so simple.

            Americans were rarely the best, but they were always somewhere near.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 22 July 2020 17: 28
              -1
              Unfortunately, we caught up with them in everything.
              1. Cottodraton
                Cottodraton 24 July 2020 04: 55
                -1
                What exactly?
          5. Lepsik
            Lepsik 22 July 2020 18: 52
            +1
            --- In terms of mechanical engineering (whether we like it or not), the United States is the number one country in the 20th century.

            That's for sure. in the USA one and a half icebreakers, and in the Russian Federation 40.
            1. Greenwood
              Greenwood 25 July 2020 12: 24
              +1
              In fairness, in the United States, half of the country lives in the tropics under palm trees, and in Russia half of the country lives in permafrost. So they don't need so many icebreakers.
          6. Zloyxirurg
            Zloyxirurg 23 July 2020 12: 08
            0
            And you, dear one, shouldn't write something like that anymore. You look ugly. To put it mildly. Not to put it mildly - the bottom.
          7. Voyager
            Voyager 27 July 2020 08: 25
            0
            "Like" in this case is written without a soft sign.
  4. mark1
    mark1 22 July 2020 06: 04
    10
    The role of the state in the fate of any large aircraft manufacturing company is undeniable. There is support - everything will work out, there is no support (imitation) - a slow kirdyk with the transformation of a powerful design bureau into some kind of "Ilyushin Finance", "Antonov Airlines", etc. Only the name of the founding father remains from the great past.
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 22 July 2020 07: 07
      +7
      You see, this is what kills: the complete inability of our aircraft manufacturers to "master" non-Russian money
      It's all about this phrase of the author. It is she who explains everything. Russian money is exactly what is being mastered. Which result is not too important anymore. The main thing is that "all sisters have earrings." And NOT Russian in this way is not to master - the investor will not allow work to no avail. At the output, we get what we have.
      1. mark1
        mark1 22 July 2020 07: 27
        +4
        Quote: NDR-791
        complete inability of our aircraft manufacturers to “master” non-Russian money

        Of the "assimilators of non-Russian" money, it was mainly Ilyushin (with the Indians) who managed to do it - at the exit he gave out zilch, Sukhoi and (especially) Yakovlev managed to use the window of opportunity. On Ilyushin (as well as on Roscosmos), it is necessary to carry out not only resuscitation but also an investigation
        1. Olezhek
          22 July 2020 07: 32
          +2
          Dry and


          You see, Sukhoi receives government funding, makes planes for the Ministry of Defense ... and, in the wake of success, sells something else there.
          Without priority state funding, the entire scheme does not work at all, it falls apart.
          It is necessary to give a lot of state finances for the "merchant" to earn at least something.

          What did Yakovlev achieve after 91?
          1. mark1
            mark1 22 July 2020 07: 35
            +6
            Yak-130 - Design Bureau got out in the most difficult years ... MS-21 nee - Yak-242. Not the worst results.
            1. Zeev zeev
              Zeev zeev 22 July 2020 08: 15
              +1
              Yak-130 was developed jointly with the Italians and with Italian money.
              1. mark1
                mark1 22 July 2020 08: 28
                0
                Here I am about the same (the efficiency of the development of "non-Russian money")
                Quote: ZeevZeev
                and with Italian money

                as well as a certain proportion of Chinese.
              2. tihonmarine
                tihonmarine 22 July 2020 10: 09
                +3
                Quote: ZeevZeev
                Yak-130 was developed jointly with the Italians and with Italian money.

                And what now and where is being developed at its own expense. And if a house was built for you in Haifa with Italian money, by German developers, and migrant workers from Ukraine were building, then the house will still be in Haifa and it will be yours.
              3. Cottodraton
                Cottodraton 22 July 2020 10: 51
                -1
                No it is not
          2. Farewell
            Farewell 22 July 2020 16: 59
            0
            Quote: Olezhek
            Dry and


            You see, Sukhoi receives government funding, makes planes for the Ministry of Defense ... and, in the wake of success, sells something else there.
            Without priority state funding, the entire scheme does not work at all, it falls apart.
            It is necessary to give a lot of state finances for the "merchant" to earn at least something.

            Do you think that in the states, the same Boeing, Lockheed or General Electric are proactively developing military equipment? Nothing like this. Several firms receive government-sponsored R&D contracts and the construction of test samples, from which they choose the winner, who continues to build aircraft at government expense.
        2. NDR-791
          NDR-791 22 July 2020 07: 59
          +2
          On Ilyushin (as well as on Roscosmos), it is necessary to carry out not only resuscitation but also an investigation
          I agree! However, there will be no investigation. For all have received the "mastered". The most we can count on is "eight years probation" and then to the switchman. The rest are up.
  5. Far B
    Far B 22 July 2020 06: 13
    16
    Something I did not quite understand the author in places. He says that the assertion that the Soviet aviation industry "gave an excellent result quite cheaply" is not entirely true, and gradually, through some mental jungle, leads to the conclusion that the result was "quite expensive." Well, the key word here is "enough". How much is "enough"? If in numbers? And who is enough?
    Then he (quite logically, by the way), declares that comparing the cost of Soviet and American aircraft is a thankless task, and ... immediately begins to compare them! moreover, tightly pulling the owl on the globe. The owl screams, resists, flaps its wings, Greenpeace is indignant, but this does not bother the author - he pulls on. You read, and a clear image of the ineffective Soviet economy begins to form in your head. True, at the end of the article, the author begins to lament about the future - of course, because the Soviet backlog is ending ... Stop! What kind of inefficient economy is it that has managed to make a reserve that they could not ditch for thirty years before the end ?!
    Another controversial point is that "ours could only work according to the Soviet scheme, that is, only on state orders." It's bullshit. If the conditions were created, if there was interest, they would work completely for themselves and on a new one, let's call it capitalist. scheme. Only the existing system is not interested in creating conditions for our really highly competitive manufacturers. Therefore, everything that was possible was buried. Look, a super-duper professional, Swedish blood, a hardened capitalist was invited to the VAZ - and what, our frets-viburnum immediately began to be in demand in all sorts of foreign lands? Yes, it never happened. Because the system is not designed for this.
    But the main message of the article is clear: the Russian aviation industry, in comparison with the Soviet one, has slipped to the level of the plinth, and something urgently needs to be done about this. Only it is not clear what. After all, according to the author, "the USSR will no longer exist, you need to put up with it." Well, that's right, what for to return to a terribly ineffective economy, which competed on an equal footing (and in some places even superior) with the Americans? Conclusion: the author tried to spit on the Soviet Union and lick the United States. As for me, it didn't work out very well. Because for this I had to pull the owl on the globe, and it tore. Well, really - sorry for the bird.
    1. Olezhek
      22 July 2020 07: 14
      -2
      He says that the assertion that the Soviet aviation industry "gave an excellent result quite cheaply" is not entirely true, and gradually, through some mental jungle, leads to the conclusion that the result was "quite expensive." Well, the key word here is "enough". How much is "enough"? If in numbers? And who is enough?


      The huge country worked for the defense industry.
      The aviation industry is the heart of the defense industry ...
      Something like that.
      Soviet results were achieved at the expense of an enormous expenditure of resources.
      So no longer.
      And we do not know how "in another way".
      1. Far B
        Far B 22 July 2020 07: 52
        +7
        A huge country worked for the defense industry
        The huge country worked for all industries. Awesomely developed social sphere devoured in no way less defense. Therefore, salaries were less than in the West - if there a person could buy (or he might not have bought, if there was no dough) this or that service (medical, educational, go on vacation, etc.), then in the Union these services were to him guaranteed... There is a very big difference in approaches, so that resources were spent on more than one defense industry (a very common myth, by the way).
        And we do not know how "differently"
        What do you have in mind? If what they do not know how our, then I have already cited the example of a Swede at AvtoVAZ. And if what they do not know how we, then I have already answered this - the system is not tailored for that. If the system was interested in the development of production in our country, then everything would develop, believe me. Our country is not populated by kami and tu.pitsy.
        1. parusnik
          parusnik 22 July 2020 10: 26
          +5
          I have already cited the example of a Swede at AvtoVAZ on this score.
          ... Yeah, and what is interesting, Avtovaz is now Citroen-Nissan, but the end result is Zhiguli ... And the former leaders of AvtoVAZ probably say: We are accused, our hands have grown out of the anus ... And we said that the place is damned ... laughing
          1. vadimtt
            vadimtt 23 July 2020 09: 51
            0
            Um, maybe a Renault-Nissan? laughing
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 22 July 2020 12: 01
        -1
        In fact, all over the world, advanced industries have achieved results only through government orders, since the state is the only consumer of products, including those not for commercial use. Without this, it is impossible to reach the level, for example, of Intel in the production of consumer CPUs, when the production is so large that it supports itself and even rapid development. And for production to be large, the production itself must be mass. The computer was not widespread in the 70s, the plane is unlikely to be massive at all.
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 22 July 2020 10: 16
      +2
      Quote: Dalny V
      Another controversial point is that "ours could only work according to the Soviet scheme, that is, only on state orders."

      I don’t understand something either, what does the state order have to do with it? You have been allocated money, and what they do not bother you, your business is to create an apparatus. Are designers and design bureaus interested in the source of money?
  6. parusnik
    parusnik 22 July 2020 07: 02
    11
    And Roosevelt (unlike Stalin) could simply order a thousand new bombers from a private owner. And don't worry about producing airframes for them or aircraft engines.
    .
    .... And in Russia, where is that private trader who could order something like that? .. We have a lot of private traders with billions, but they don't stand in line for the production of combat aircraft, helicopters, as well as civilian ones. Is the USSR guilty again? He's gone for a long time. I remember that one such "private trader" promised to fill up with super modern cars and cheap ones. And how I started: we will produce our own car from a bolt ... Then the rhetoric changed, in production, the Chinese "comrades" will take part, and then everything disappeared, from the word completely. Again the Soviet legacy prevented?. The message of the article is clear. managers, this, this, we do not know how to do this, we will buy abroad, and it is cheaper and there are enough resources ... for now. Who is to blame? And nobody. Soviet past ...
    1. SNEAKY
      SNEAKY 22 July 2020 08: 14
      +2
      hi To the point! Not a small enough crowd of people in the Russian Federation does not want to legalize their "super profits" stupidly by proizvodstvo.It is easier to keep money in foreign banks with the same exhaust than to invest somewhere.
      And as an example: in the middle of the XNUMXs they wanted to open the production of LED strip near the Moscow Ring Road, so when calculating it turned out that it is not just buying it, but producing it in China is much more profitable.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 22 July 2020 08: 24
        +5
        hi And where does the profitability come from, if prices in Russia, for energy resources are growing? ... We are laying SP-2 to Germany, in order to save German production, so that it would run on cheap Russian gas, not on expensive American gas, we supply cheap electricity to the PRC, so that the goods produced there by the order of the Russian business are cheap and sell these goods in Russia ... smile
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 22 July 2020 10: 27
      +6
      Quote: parusnik
      As our managers say, this, this, we do not know how to do this, we will buy abroad, and it is cheaper and there are enough resources ... for now. Who is to blame?

      Well, Putin said that the USSR could make galoshes. And then I will add, exaggerating - and home slippers. But why now Chinese galoshes and slippers are now being sold, and this is with billionaire oligarchs and various top managers. But in the USSR, they flew on their own planes and took 2nd place in the world, traveled on their own trains and also second in the world, caught fish on their trawlers and first in the world in the fleet, all transportation on the roads in their cars. There is no need to talk about the army and the navy. And despite what we now have, we see everything, it is not even a tenth of what it was. So again, the USSR is to blame for not producing galoshes.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 22 July 2020 11: 21
        +3
        So again, the USSR is to blame for not producing galoshes.
        .... When many things go wrong, there must be a culprit. laughing
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 July 2020 17: 36
      -1
      In general, there are about a dozen private offices that themselves create light airplanes and helicopters in Russia, and in the space sector of private offices there are eight, one of them, "Kosmokurs", plans to establish orbital tourism.
  7. 210ox
    210ox 22 July 2020 07: 02
    +7
    Yes, neither Hitler, nor Hirohito, nor even Roosevelt could order from a private owner and did not worry about the result. I could have ordered more precisely, but what would often be the result? And how technological, massive and practical.
    1. Olezhek
      22 July 2020 07: 15
      -2
      Yes, neither Hitler, nor Hirohito, nor even Roosevelt could order from a private owner and did not worry about the result. I could have ordered more precisely, but what would often be the result?


      It was necessary to control
      But the "process" itself was perfectly conducted by a private trader (for example, Ford)
    2. unaha
      unaha 22 July 2020 09: 18
      0
      "but what would often be the way out" - the way out was what the Germans, Japanese, Americans, Europeans flew.
      The customer formulates the TK for the product and checks the compliance with this TK, if the product matches the TK, he orders it in the amount specified in the contract. And he is not interested in how "technological, massive and practical" it will be, it is the manufacturer's concern.
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 22 July 2020 10: 34
      +1
      Quote: 210ox
      Yes, neither Hitler, nor Hirohito, nor even Roosevelt could order from a private owner and did not worry about the result.

      It was easier for Hitler, he took everyone by the throat and made them do what he needed. But cars were made all over Europe, who could, and in the Wehrmacht there were hundreds of different brands of cars, and all different. This was the headache of the German army. A private trader without the participation of the state is not able to create the required effective product.
      1. unaha
        unaha 22 July 2020 12: 35
        +1
        "A private trader is not able to create the required effective product without the participation of the state." - why not? Creates both the product and sometimes the product market itself. It is another matter that in some areas the market does not provide a profit to a private trader or entails excessive risks. Here the state, if a product is needed, formulates the requirements for it, acts as a customer and guarantees sales.
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 22 July 2020 13: 06
          0
          Quote: unaha
          Here the state, if a product is needed, formulates the requirements for it, acts as a customer and guarantees sales.

          That's what happened, with the beginning of WWII, the Ford GPW and Willys MBWillys MB appeared, an American army off-road vehicle of the Second World War. Serial production began in 1941 at the factories of Willys-Overland Motors and Ford. Then the state forced to create this product, which was beneficial to both parties.
          1. Olezhek
            22 July 2020 13: 55
            -2
            This is what happened, with the beginning of WWII, Ford GPW and Willys MBWillys MB appeared ... Then the state forced to create this product,


            So the guys from the FBI came, pointed a Thompson submachine gun at Henry Ford and made him rivet "Fords"

            For with a swear word and a Thompson submachine gun, you can achieve much more than just a swear word
            popular American wisdom.
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 22 July 2020 14: 47
              0
              Quote: Olezhek
              So the guys from the FBI came, pointed a Thompson submachine gun at Henry Ford and made him rivet "Fords"

              Let's just say that guys came in jackets and ties, brought an offer on one sheet of paper, and on the second, a layout that will have Willys-Overland Motors and Ford. The guys received contact, although about a hundred enterprises received proposals for the manufacture of future machines, and only three of them took the risk to help out their army. They were American Bantam, Willys-Overland and Ford.
              The last two were on a horse because the cost was $ 738. And practically all the allied armies moved on them. The dollar was stronger than Thomson.
  8. Zeev zeev
    Zeev zeev 22 July 2020 07: 05
    +3
    Thank you very much for an honest and well-reasoned article about the real situation.
    1. unaha
      unaha 22 July 2020 09: 22
      +2
      Useless. Commentators have already described a lot of reasons why everything is wrong. And "if it weren't for something there," we would uh ... forgetting that history has no subjunctive mood and all the consequences had their own objective reasons.
  9. Eug
    Eug 22 July 2020 07: 35
    +3
    So far, we are seeing attempts to move from "at any cost" to "cost-effectiveness". If with the first part everything is more or less (the products are confidently pulling up at a cost to foreign samples), then there are obvious flaws with efficiency .. In reality, the aircraft market is very dependent on state policy - it only seems that it is "free", and as restoring the prestige of the state in the international arena and creating real aircraft, different in concept from Western ones, they will find their buyer. They and domestic demand at the first stage of recovery should be guided by. Breakthrough projects, pulling adjacent industries, without state. support will not be enough, but these are not only questions of the aviation industry.
  10. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 22 July 2020 07: 35
    +6
    We are looking at Boeing from our neighbors. The state will not help a civilian Boeing. The military will easily turn off. I’m not mistaken for one order for a passenger board. I realized that something was wrong with Boeing. Without the help of the state, the civil aircraft industry in any country will not survive.
    1. Olezhek
      22 July 2020 07: 37
      -1
      I watch one blogger, so he brought one landing gear to the Boeing plant in Seattle, you understand


      Excuse me, but do you want to say that they began to put one landing gear on Boeings? belay
      In order to save money or what? request
      1. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 22 July 2020 07: 48
        +4
        That's right, I was dragging one rack from Canada to Seattle. I would have worked like this all my life.
        1. Free wind
          Free wind 22 July 2020 09: 13
          +1
          Firstly, what kind of truck it is, its carrying capacity, dimensions. secondly, what kind of rack and its equipment. So the hydraulic drive also applies to the rack, the dimensions and weight are not small. Well, and the fact that there is only one consignee, there is no need to wander around the city, or even from city to city for unloading. When there are 500-700 horses under the hood, it doesn't matter how many tens of tons you have behind your back. But the axle load in America is very strict.
          1. tralflot1832
            tralflot1832 22 July 2020 10: 55
            0
            He used to drag 4 chassis each. And we were touched by Avisma partial conservation or complete who knows?
  11. Farewell
    Farewell 22 July 2020 07: 51
    11
    I would like to clarify a couple of questions.
    Firstly, it is relatively "cheap" and "expensive". The cost of the R-51 Mustang fighter was 52 606 usd, R-39 36 590 usd, R-40 54 472 usd. The prime cost of the Yak-9 fighter is 127 rubles. The ruble / dollar exchange rate is 340. The difference is obvious.
    And I would like to know, on the basis of which the author made a conclusion about the difference in the levels of the average Soviet and American aviation engineers .. It may be true for the present, when the Soviet cadres have just finished their active work, but not for that period of the explosive development of aviation.
    Secondly. The problems of the Superjet are associated primarily not with some inherent flaw in the design, but with the lack of an organized system of service maintenance, big problems with the supply of necessary spare parts, which is why foreign air carriers refuse to use it. Claims to a large number of foreign components are partly justified, but during its design, in the end, no one could predict the "Crimeanash" and the sanctions. A modern civil aircraft is equipped with a large number of systems that require expensive and time-consuming international certification, and independent development of them at that time was impractical.
    1. 2 Level Advisor
      2 Level Advisor 22 July 2020 08: 23
      +6
      SJ does not need Africa, both Europe and America bought him completely .. The problem of SJ's sales is not his mediocrity, he is normal, the problem is in the delivery of spare parts and maintenance in other countries .. for some reason, ours safely put a bolt on it, sold it to to the devil of the buyer ..
      For example, Boeing - delivery of an average of 8 hours of spare parts for repair, i.e. on average, a maximum of a day and the plane flew, SJs can wait for weeks for spare parts on the ground - why is it for a commercial airline? And it's not free, Boeing makes money on it, and Sukhoi is not interested, apparently, it's not money from the budget .. and if they don't take planes around the world, fate will be - forever living on subsidies with uncertainty of the result ..
    2. Olezhek
      22 July 2020 08: 57
      0
      Firstly, it is relatively "cheap" and "expensive". The cost of the R-51 Mustang fighter was 52 606 usd, R-39 36 590 usd, R-40 54 472 usd. The prime cost of the Yak-9 fighter is 127 rubles. The ruble / dollar exchange rate is 340. The difference is obvious.


      The difference is that military production before WWII was hardly perceptible for the American economy.
      And even during the war, the Americans dressed well and ate until they were full ...


      In the USSR, however, the latter had to be spent on the creation of aircraft ... Direct conversion? What are you talking about?
      And in a planned economy, you can count money as you like (though this does not lead to good)

      And I would like to know, on the basis of which the author made a conclusion about the difference in the levels of the average Soviet and American aviation engineers


      In the late Soviet era, there were much more Soviet "average" engineers than American ones ...
      Their salaries were much lower, and in the field of aviation, the countries competed on an equal footing.
      (the Americans ran a bit ahead).
  12. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 22 July 2020 07: 55
    +1
    The impression that Skomorokhov wrote the note.
    1. bar
      bar 22 July 2020 12: 02
      +2
      I also thought so, both in terms of the volume of the article and the concentration of depression per square centimeter of text. Maybe he changed his nickname? recourse
      1. Olezhek
        22 July 2020 13: 51
        0
        Alas, this is just a pathetic epigony ... request
        Where do we go ... sad
  13. Klingon
    Klingon 22 July 2020 08: 46
    +4
    All this bitter cataclysm that I am observing here (in the aviation industry and not only) has arisen for one reason: it is like everywhere else in our country: because leading positions are occupied by people who have absolutely nothing to do with the industry but are loyal to the government. These are like mongrels on a short leash - they know how to yap and create a lot of noise, but in general there is no sense wassat
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 July 2020 17: 40
      0
      Exactly so - and everyone wants nationalization, the state will plant the same at all enterprises who do not care where to sit or any development with such guys will definitely not be.
  14. Maks1995
    Maks1995 22 July 2020 08: 47
    0
    Wah. Everyone is right. Both in the article and in the comments!
    How does it happen?)))
  15. Valery Potapov
    Valery Potapov 22 July 2020 08: 48
    +2
    The prospects for the aviation industry are as clear and unclouded as Medvedev's eyes. As our policeman-president forbade TU-134 flights ... So that he would always fly 737 ...
  16. EvilLion
    EvilLion 22 July 2020 09: 09
    +3
    after all, a very different number of specialists worked on the same project in the USSR and the USA (the Soviets have much more)


    Considering the number of design bureaus in the Union and the number of weapon models that it rolled out in comparison with the United States, this statement is surprising, because then it turns out that the number of designers in itself was many times greater, if not an order of magnitude. Where did they come from in a country that in 1945 was not close to the United States in terms of urbanization?

    In the 70s we loved to rant in smoking rooms, how much such engineers get in America. "They are like that" - not at all. Because "there" "such" specialists were not interesting to anyone (for the most part).


    I'm afraid a design engineer is something that you just can't get. Not just a good constructor, but in general.

    And besides, they had and still have a powerful [/ i] civil private [/ i] aircraft industry.


    What is this nonsense ?? What's the difference, a private office or a state one, the main thing is that all these Boeings existed and captured the market even when the aircraft industry was just being created in the USSR. And these offices were private owners only when aviation was at the level of crafts in garages. Then, when military orders came, and they were only from the state, you can forget about the private owner. Now in the world, in principle, there are no private individuals who could create airplanes, there are only giant corporations that are very tightly connected with states.

    And in the end, at the expense of the state, we must produce a lot of everything technically complex and surpassing our current level. And at the same time, with the termination of state funding, production immediately collapses!

    Well, where is the cheapness? And Roosevelt (unlike Stalin) could simply order a thousand new bombers from a private owner.


    And what, private aircraft are created by magic and cost nothing? Moreover, in the USSR in the 30s, in full accordance with the slogan that "factories for workers", aircraft factories worked with those designers with whom they wanted to work. Workers are masters, and they do what they want at home. It was then that the shop was closed, and Stalin got the opportunity to simply order factory # 3459395 to produce 1000 bombers. You do not order a private trader, you will negotiate with him, and pay him all the costs, as well as a new yacht. In the USSR, the yacht was excluded from the equation.

    After 1991, the aviation industry predictably went into a dive. What kind of business? What are the international markets? They have been working in the state system all their lives and are not used to working differently.


    They have worked all their lives in 2 systems:
    1) When Aeroflot buys everything. As a result, with good results in the 60s and 90s, the citizen met with absolutely uncompetitive.
    2) When the general comes and explains that the Americans do not have an airplane, an eagle, an F-15, and our falcons need it just as well. And the designer is handed over. Accordingly, new competitive machines were created. It so happened that the most competitive products turned out to be "Sukhoi", which they managed to sell to the same Indians back in the 90s. And then there were no used Su-27s on the world market, unlike the MiG-29. Everyone who had a product learned to work with a foreign customer already in the 90s. But there were no civilians among them.
    1. Olezhek
      22 July 2020 09: 21
      +3
      You do not order a private trader, you will negotiate with him, and pay him all expenses, as well as a new yacht. In the USSR, the yacht was excluded from the equation


      Oh well. But only the United States could provide an ordinary worker at an aircraft plant with an excellent salary (30th / 40th). And to collect planes much more than in the USSR and of better quality.
      And you yachts, yachts ... do not engage in propaganda. And the workers did not live in the barracks there.

      But here and in tsarist Russia (which we lost) in WWI with planes and aircraft engines was full of seams ...

      There are yachts, no planes ...
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 22 July 2020 12: 07
        0
        I'll tell you a secret. If in 1930 you surpass the USSR by an order of magnitude in the number of aircraft that you can produce, with better quality, then in the 45th the USSR will most likely also produce fewer aircraft. Maybe not an order of magnitude less, but 4-5 times. And by 1980, maybe 3 times.

        The question here is that in the United States there were planes and yachts, and the RCMP, despite the absence of planes, had yachts. civilians were all the rules. In the USSR, yachts were gone, but planes began to appear, and by the 1980s they even became comparable to American ones. At the same time, the USSR produced several times more equipment than the USA.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 10: 41
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      after all, a very different number of specialists worked on the same project in the USSR and the USA (the Soviets have much more)


      There were real figures for the period before the war. We had fewer specialists working on aircraft and engine projects than the Germans ... And after the war, it was probably no better. And the United States built many more prototypes for each project.
  17. EvilLion
    EvilLion 22 July 2020 09: 53
    +1
    The main complaint about the Sukhoi is that the plane was not very technical. I know there are crowds of trolls roaming the Internet claiming otherwise. Foaming at the mouth of those who affirm. With figures, facts and accusations of dislike for the domestic aviation industry. The problem is that Superjet has practically nothing to do with the domestic aviation industry. Solyanka.

    The design quality is average, to put it mildly. "I blinded him from what was." Why was this all started? What for? Having no experience in this kind of activity? What does fighter aircraft design have to do with short-haul aircraft design? Once again: the main question is that the project itself is “not a fountain” unambiguously. Not a masterpiece and not even a strong middling.

    And for ten years we have been foaming at the mouth ... It would be better to spend this energy on designing the aircraft itself. And further: to the question about almost completely imported "packaging" we were cleverly explained about the "need for international certification."


    I do not know which of the designers who work directly proves something to you, most likely no one, they are busy. But:
    1) All civil aircraft in the world are made from what you can buy on the market. There is no American Boeing either; everything from different countries is mixed there.
    2) Civil aircraft are now so developed that they practically do not differ from each other, and the SSJ is no exception in this regard. To move further technologically is a transition to supersonic. Aviation is now in general rested on this ceiling, when something can be done, but not profitable.
    3) Who should make civil aircraft here? Tupolev? So they had a Tu-334, technically backward squalor at the time of creation, which could only be rolled around the airfield, and which no one bought.
    4) Do you want to sell planes abroad? Well, either you buy ready-made systems there and quickly get the opportunity to sell, or you are waiting for similar solutions from a domestic manufacturer, which will still be available. The assembly plant at this time stands, as well as subcontractors, who are ready to supply their components. No money, no experience. An existing selling aircraft with a localization of 60-70% is much better than a hypothetical one with a localization of 100%. And the same Yak-42 SSJ has already justified the number of manufactured ones.

    The situation is anecdotal: if under the USSR we produced up to a thousand civilian aircraft a year,


    If you count every Yak-52. For the rest, after the 1960s in the USSR, only An-24 and Tu-154 had the release of more than 1000 copies for the entire time. The Soviet aviation industry was insignificant on a global scale.

    They still see the main money in the Russian budget. And nothing else. That is why no one was going to make candy out of the Superjet. What for? That is why a spare parts warehouse, etc. was not created for it.


    I’ll tell you a secret, but it’s the same everywhere in the world. But SSJ has already produced 200 copies.

    The "magic seaplane" Be-200 also turned out to be of no use to anyone abroad. And how much pathos there was ...


    And he was, pathos? The fact that this is a niche car is clear to everyone. On the other hand, the program for re-partitioning the hard drive is also a niche one, only you will not be able to do without it when you need it.

    There, it seems, the Russian state generously allocated money for as many as 6 pieces of MiG-35, well, there was a "wheelhouse" around them. And even on the pages of "VO". Six pieces. At the same time, yes, at the same time it was announced that the Indians are supposedly ready to take almost a hundred ... they are at a low start.


    And what is the actual problem? Are you suggesting what? Order 600 MiG-35? Or close it? For the Air Force this plane is not particularly needed, they have the Su-35S, the Su-57 is on the way. On the other hand, the development of the MiG-35 for the state costs a penny, the closure of work on it is also not free, and the volume of orders for aircraft of the MiG-29 family in recent years is quite significant. The same American companies, despite the presence of the F-35, continue to push their projects and just now the F-15EX has won a very significant victory, and, apparently, 2030 of these machines will be manufactured by 144.

    So people are also busy with the real design, and it remains possible to offer a product in the most common size class in the world. As for the Indians, few people are interested in their eternal dances, but they have already danced before ordering in Russia 21 MiG-29s from the availability with repair and upgrade. When they dance to the point that they should have bought a hundred new cars yesterday, and they finish dancing, it’s silly to give such a piece to some Rafale.

    About the Il-112, which the Air Force needs on a leftover basis, somehow even reluctant to speak. Without the Il-112, the Air Force will last a long time, without the Su-35S they will cease to exist. But you cannot close it simply because you can also dance, but it turns out that there is no plane for the series at all. And it will not be possible to pull off a fighter feint from the beginning of the 10s, when, having a crude Su-35S, they quickly adapted the Su-30MKI to their own air forces, and Irkut very quickly nailed them. The same Su-35S, if not in the know, was created at all at your own peril and risk, and when the money came, it was already in some more or less acceptable condition to start production, even at the cost of very likely alterations of the first machines.
    1. c2020
      c2020 22 July 2020 11: 45
      +1
      In order to create the most modern aviation and aerospace equipment, you need to study not only 5-6 years at a university, but also, improving 20-30 years in practice, under the guidance of highly qualified specialists. At the same time, the so-called digitalization is a minor addition to fundamental engineering training. Alas, for the last 30 years, Russian young engineers and scientists had nothing to practice on, the aviation industry was actually idle. Most of the Soviet bison are very old or have already passed away. Young people mostly learned only to poke computer buttons and draw beautiful pictures. Most of today's aeronautical engineering personnel do not have real long-term experience of working with advanced hardware. The situation is similar with specialized engineering universities, in which there are no bison professors. Now you need 30 years to raise such professors and another 30 years to raise engineers and scientists in order to at least return to the technological level of the USSR. This is the life of two generations - 60 years. For the same amount of time, the Chinese have been catching up with Russia, starting with their studies at Soviet universities in the 50s, and copying Soviet textbooks in a notebook from cover to cover. Prospects for digitalization are for amateurs. Today in the domestic aviation industry the agenda is again a sledgehammer, a chisel and a file. These tools do not have buttons and a screen, and therefore the "digital youth", alas, will not be able to help. The last faint hope for the last Soviet bison. But they were probably pissed off by the increase in the retirement age. Now they will have to pay with bags of pure gold in order to at least smooth out the insult. I do not mention the "gift" to the elderly in the form of the coronavirus, for whom it is especially dangerous. That is why we read about endless "plans to revive the aircraft industry", "new initiatives" and "new projects", but there is nothing to read about the release of large series of modern aviation and space technology. It is quite obvious that in this state of affairs, apart from scribbling and building Potemkin villages, nothing is foreseen in the field of domestic aviation for the next 60 years.
    2. Olezhek
      22 July 2020 13: 00
      +1
      All civil aircraft in the world are made from what you can buy on the market. There is no American Boeing either,



      belay drinks request sad

      And in general, America is a myth!
  18. prior
    prior 22 July 2020 10: 48
    +1
    Judging by the "development" of various industries,
    Russia's future is a banana republic where bananas don't grow.
  19. Far East
    Far East 22 July 2020 11: 16
    0
    here, and the answer: M Tolboev said very well.https: //www.youtube.com/watch? v = jhX4dJCtEBk & list = LLvlBgJaD6OhU6ym8Id2-25A & index = 2 & t = 0s
  20. borys
    borys 22 July 2020 11: 31
    0
    One of the commentators correctly noted - it would be better if the master
    Egorov did not go into this topic. And in many others too. By article
    it can be seen that the author never had any relation to the aviation industry.
    I suspect the same applies to all other industries. And the topic
    I didn't even study this one carefully. Otherwise I would have known the main provisions.
    In the West, the aircraft industry is private only in the sense of obtaining
    arrived. Aviation developed only in those countries where this business
    was seriously supported by the state. If we take production
    military aircraft, it has lived everywhere and for a long time under socialism.
    Compared to prices. It is not necessary to compare rubles and dollars. Compare
    you need the availability of air transportation for the absolute majority
    citizens of a given state. On this issue under the "evil Bolsheviks"
    it was quite safe. As for the assessments of aircraft.
    There is a lot of advertising and lobbying on this issue. They say that the USSR
    promoted its aircraft to allies and dependent countries.
    Isn't the West doing the same thing? By the way, any sane
    the state should promote the products of its manufacturers on
    foreign markets, since this is one of the main tasks of this very
    state. Regarding one of the comments from Evilion.
    In the 70s and 80s, the USSR produced a sick amount of aircraft.
    The late Andrey Razbash (journalist and a native of the aircraft industry)
    claimed - up to a third of world production. Quite real
    numeral.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 22 July 2020 12: 33
      +1
      Even in my article about supposedly falling planes, I wrote that it is better for Egorov to write about Belarus and China, and he does not know where to go.

      And I also wrote out information about the production of aircraft in the USSR in the comments to it. Maybe if we count in pieces and An-2 equal to Boing-747, then perhaps a third will be, helicopters, like the Mi-8, are still a hit, but the USSR did not pull even against one Boing for large-sized airliners.
    2. Olezhek
      22 July 2020 12: 57
      +1
      .
      And the topic
      I didn't even study this one carefully. Otherwise I would have known the main provisions.
      In the West, the aircraft industry is private only in the sense of obtaining
      profit.


      And the planes themselves are sawn at state-owned enterprises, then they glue the nameplates of various Boeing and bombardiers there ...
      But this is a secret!
  21. bar
    bar 22 July 2020 12: 00
    0
    And, by the way, the very ability of Russian producers to fight for foreign contracts raises big questions. They were not taught this, and they do not know how. All their activities often boil down to a powerful PR and a subsequent attack on the Russian budget. All.

    Is it really that bad? It's a pity the Indians do not know this. Due to their ignorance, they are again going to buy a batch of fighters. repeat
  22. Galleon
    Galleon 22 July 2020 12: 16
    +3
    And the United Aircraft Corporation has growing debts. Which, in general, is not surprising.

    Well, if debts grow, give the management of the corporation - the entire management - a salary not in the million, but the average for the aircraft plant - and everyone runs in, and money will be found, and orders will appear, and they will try to raise the salaries of those who make these aircraft, so that they themselves have a bonus appeared. And so they already have everything. Why would they lead something, develop something, if THEY ALREADY HAVE EVERYTHING ?!
    1. Olezhek
      22 July 2020 12: 55
      0
      to the entire management - the salary is not a million, but the average for the aircraft plant


      They will leave! am
      1. Galleon
        Galleon 22 July 2020 14: 21
        +3
        And thank God! Leave means indifferent. All of these corporate management look more like spinnips on the necks of factories than working organs.
  23. Xenofont
    Xenofont 22 July 2020 12: 42
    +1
    Sukhoi had the idea that they would rivet the Superjet, get it from the sale, and that the service would be handled by someone else, preferably the state. Schaub sold and out of sight, but there were no fools-buyers: they took them on lease and sent them safely ... when there was already nothing to get rid of.
  24. exo
    exo 22 July 2020 13: 03
    0
    Wow, what an immense topic.
    From my own experience, I will say: the manufacturer's reluctance to change something in accordance with the wishes of the operator, then a very belated reaction (Tu-204/214, as a result, already unnecessary Tu-204SM).
    A purely Soviet approach: where are you going? And suddenly, despite the difficulties of transitioning to world standards (personnel certification, English, a completely different philosophy of logistics), airlines begin to switch to foreign cars, which are much more efficient (large resources of engines and units, no extra crew members). And the air industry groan: Boeing and Airbus, they bought everyone. In fairness, I think that this also took place.
    A completely different approach to education. They have: the most severe execution of documents, with constant control. We have: room for improvisation.
    MS-21 will be forced upon airlines, just like the Superjet. Especially the Aeroflot group of companies. More precisely, "Russia". Losses will be extinguished by Aeroflot, at the expense of profits from the operation of foreign aircraft.
    The Russian aviation industry (civilian segment) can only survive with a closed market and state subsidies. When the market opens, almost instant rejection of Russian aircraft.
    After 1991, this did not happen solely due to the fact that the planes were practically donated, along with the infrastructure, to air carriers. Plus, the system is thus. and crew training was very different from the world. Now, there are no such conditions.
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 23 July 2020 17: 06
      0
      The Russian aviation industry (civilian segment) can only survive with a closed market and state subsidies. When the market opens, almost instant rejection of Russian aircraft.

      You pointed out the correct solution to the problem of the civil aviation industry at the initial stage of recovery.
  25. iouris
    iouris 22 July 2020 14: 11
    +1
    If the state has a "vague" future, then the "aviation industry" too. In addition, there is no "aviation industry", but there is a WTO agent - the Ministry of Economy and Trade.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 July 2020 17: 48
      -2
      The whole world in the WTO get used to it. And Russia has a lot of projects at different stages in the aviation industry and there is nothing vague there - no one is dealing with nebulae anymore.
      1. iouris
        iouris 22 July 2020 17: 55
        +1
        "Rejoice, Gruppenfuehrer: now the whole world is already under" Mueller's cap. "
        The Russian Federation "entered" the WTO in order to destroy the Soviet industry, get rid of stale goods, receive cheap raw materials from the Russian Federation and create an externally controlled nomenclature in the Russian Federation.
        The first twenty-five years are hard, then you get used to it.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 23 July 2020 01: 01
          -2
          Russia exports all raw materials at market prices - what kind of cheap raw materials have you dug up and where? "Destroying the Soviet industry" - Most of it plowed in the military-industrial complex and the rest, apart from trash and buckets of bolts for the civilian sector, did not produce anything. And what kind of nomenclature in Russia is ruled in the West - that they constantly impose sanctions on us? - Finish your libelous inclinations.
    2. NordUral
      NordUral 23 July 2020 17: 03
      0
      We have no state. There is a group of people who seized the property of the country and the power in it. And calling itself a state.
  26. Farewell
    Farewell 22 July 2020 17: 10
    +1
    Quote: Olezhek


    The difference is that military production before WWII was hardly perceptible for the American economy.
    And even during the war, the Americans dressed well and ate until they were full ...


    In the USSR, however, the latter had to be spent on the creation of aircraft ... Direct conversion? What are you talking about?
    And in a planned economy, you can count money as you like (though this does not lead to good)

    Well, is it really necessary to remind that the only war that the Americans fought on their territory was the war of independence? Naturally, a country that is fighting thousands of kilometers from its borders lives much better than one in which the war has destroyed a quarter of its national wealth.
    Well, you can suggest a specific way of comparing the cost of production yourself, if you don't like this one.
    In the late Soviet era, there were much more Soviet "average" engineers than American ones ...
    Their salaries were much lower, and in the field of aviation, the countries competed on an equal footing.
    (the Americans ran a bit ahead).

    Some figures should be seen, without them this is a conversation about nothing.
  27. borys
    borys 22 July 2020 22: 10
    +2
    Especially for Mr. Egorov.
    I am aware that in the USA the aviation industry belongs to private owners. They
    they profit from this activity. That's just where
    would these private traders if the state for
    for many decades did not provide them with a solid military
    orders for very large amounts. This is the one
    socialism. With such state support, it is easier to develop
    civil aircraft And that is not always good
    turns out. Suffice it to recall the scandal around the company
    "Lockheed", which took place in the second half of the 70s.
    This famous company bribed officials
    Japanese Ministry of Transport to push
    their passenger aircraft to Japanese airlines.
    To save "Lockheed" a capitalist state
    (USA) allocated money from the state budget. Typically Soviet
    and a socialist approach. The company exists to this day.
    Mainly due to military orders.
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 23 July 2020 17: 00
      0
      I am aware that in the USA the aviation industry belongs to private owners. They
      they profit from this activity. That's just where
      would these private traders if the state for
      for many decades did not provide them with a solid military
      orders for very large amounts. This is the one
      socialism.

      Removed from the tongue.
  28. Ruslan Nikolaev
    Ruslan Nikolaev 22 July 2020 23: 15
    +2
    I read it. The article was not impressed in any way. I don't even know what to attribute it to. A lot of criticism and more than one sentence. So I can pick anyone. By the way, about the Be-200. I didn't get it. Author, if you don't need an airplane, it doesn't mean that the country doesn't need it. The machine is quite intensively operated by the Ministry of Emergencies. Only one plane is indicated in the article. financial. The author, as I understand it, is not interested in how we are here a little under siege. At the same time, he mentions the problems with Iran. By the way, forgetting that when the SSJ was created, such problems were not foreseen. It was only later that we got into it. It should be understood that at the time of the decision, no one had thought that over time, a tough confrontation with the West would begin. Of course you can understand. We're all so smart in hindsight. This is generally after knowledge. Here the author broadcasts that ours do not know how to sell. Seriously. Well try to sell your planes. Evano Eir Baltic was forced to abandon the purchase of the SSJ. The reason is purely political. Hysteria in the Lithuanian government. Now in general, for example, contacting Western airlines is toxic. And this is the largest market. Because everywhere politics interferes with them. And a comparison of the production of aircraft from the West and ours. It was amusing. Well, to begin with, let's compare the sales markets. Even if we assume that ours will begin to stamp like Americans. Well, what to do with them. They will not be taken to the west, purely for political reasons. Well, for them, the sale of gas and grain by Russia is already a threat to national security, and the planes are generally a sickle in the balls. By the way, there is no desert like in the USA in Russia. You can't work for a warehouse. As Boeing is doing now. The size of the market where you can sell without running into political squabbles is not that big. As a port, we actually have only two aircraft models SSJ and MS. Boeing 4 has several modifications for each model. I do not count cargo planes and tankers. And Boeing also produces fighters and other military equipment. The article is flat and narrow-minded. Doesn't take into account a lot of factors. There are no suggestions. In general, I'm tired of reading this.
    1. Olezhek
      23 July 2020 08: 16
      0
      .
      By the way, forgetting that when the SSJ was created, such problems were not foreseen. It was only later that we got into it. It should be understood that at the time of the decision, no one had thought that over time, a tough confrontation with the West would begin.


      belay Hmm ... request
      1. NordUral
        NordUral 23 July 2020 16: 59
        0
        Yes, then they could not even think that the West would offend them so much that it would begin to take away what was stolen. Greedy, narrow-minded simpletons.
  29. mister-red
    mister-red 23 July 2020 10: 39
    +1
    Is the author incompetent?
    Well, where is the cheapness? And Roosevelt (unlike Stalin) could simply order a thousand new bombers from a private owner. And do not worry about producing gliders for them, or about aircraft engines.

    Was it really so? Maybe the state still gave money for development. And it did not always get the result. What is still happening. Not?

    at the same time, the level of the average Soviet aviation engineer was somewhat lower.

    In the 70s we loved to rant in smoking rooms, how much such engineers get in America. "They are like that" - not at all. Because "there" "such" specialists were not interesting to anyone (for the most part).


    It is somehow incomprehensible - the level is a little lower, but still no one needs it.
    That is, the specialists who created the Tu-154, Il-62, An-124, etc. are engineers so old that they wouldn't be useful to anyone? How many countries at that time could produce such aircraft?
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 23 July 2020 16: 57
      0
      That is why "low-quality" Soviet and Russian designers are now working in Boeing.
      The author deliberately confused the problems of aviation industry personnel, taking away from the fact
      that our GDP was more than half that of the US.
      That the Soviet country was spending energy on rebuilding the country after the war, that it was mastering Siberia and much more, it required resources of material, financial and working heads and hands. There was a problem of personnel at the top of the country, but this is a completely different topic.
      I will not write about what America was like, what to repeat, everyone already knows.
  30. sevryuk
    sevryuk 23 July 2020 10: 47
    0
    The issue of our own aviation is a matter of state sovereignty. If you want to defend your national interests without fear of "sanctions", be prepared to spend public funds, incl. and on civil aircraft.
    The author is a "pro-salipolymer" (a kind of smerdyakovism).
  31. Zloyxirurg
    Zloyxirurg 23 July 2020 11: 20
    0
    The article is pure order. It's just amazing how much you can be such a banal and already inveterate representative of all-propals to try to build something out of yourself by riveting such a hovnetso. Flew the Superjet many times. And for all my skepticism and natural harm, I will say that this is a completely normal plane.
    Yes, there are some problems. Yes, there are disasters. But what does this have to do with a lopsided pilot, whom the corrupt and thoroughly corrupt Aeroflot accepted who could not fly in extreme situations, and the shortcomings of airplanes? Maybe then you lovers of Americanism, recall the Boeing Max? Which falls into a tailspin due to the firmware curve and something else there in it?
    The trouble with our aircraft industry is the same as everywhere in Russia - through and through the corrupt leadership.
    Corruption. Money laundering. Nepotism. Such nonsense to write is simply amazing. If only I could begin to calculate how many aircraft of the Su27 / 30/34/35 family have been produced in the last 15 years.
    The article is full bottom.
    It's a pity you can't minus.
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 23 July 2020 16: 50
      0
      The point is not whether it is "super" bad or good, but that its filling is about 80% import!
  32. silver_roman
    silver_roman 23 July 2020 11: 22
    +1
    Well, what are you just about the bad? why didn't they remember anything about the MC-21? Why is there nothing about PD-14? somehow it turned out one-sided. And it is extremely unprofessional to write articles so, forgetting about all aspects and aspects of the issue. And why is our market not big? Certainly not the same as in the USA. About 1800 aircraft are in service. approximately 800+ for regional and mainline. The overwhelming majority of trunk lines are Boeing and Airbus. Why not drive them out of the market gradually? like there is a program for this. It goes without saying that this is not profitable for the airlines at first. Then you need a subsidy from the state for this very first time, and when the percentage of domestic aircraft goes up the hill, then the benefits will be obvious. And then the competitiveness will be higher.
  33. NordUral
    NordUral 23 July 2020 16: 47
    +1
    Exactly! And it had both its pluses and certain minuses. After 1991, the aviation industry predictably went into a dive. What kind of business? What are the international markets? They have been working in the state system all their lives and are not used to working differently. As they joked about Antonov in the epoch of "independence": this is an air carrier that pretends to be an aircraft manufacturer.

    The Russian Federation had some opportunities to maintain the trousers of the aviation industry. The results are pretty miserable.

    Author! Why lie like that? Despite all the problems of the Soviet civil aviation industry, his murder was the work of certain people in the leadership of the Russian Federation.
  34. alecsis69
    alecsis69 23 July 2020 21: 37
    0
    You might think American Boeing and Lockheed live without a government order. As soon as a defense order is not given to one of them, for all its "competitiveness" it immediately falls on its side.
    And the competitiveness of American aircraft in the international market is ensured by the entire power of the American fleet and the ILC.
  35. pylon101
    pylon101 23 July 2020 22: 47
    0
    Strange article. I agree with the part of the Soviet aircraft industry.
    But I do not quite understand how the author sees the ways of reviving the industry? How can it be reborn if not through existing structures? Or not at all?
    Then. Complete misunderstanding of how this industry works in the USA. This is a completely monopolized area, where tenders are "played out" between a tiny number of players. With billions in kickbacks.
    Moreover, this vicious system costs taxpayers' money, since, for example, Boeing is formally divided into two separate corporations (one builds passenger planes, and the other fulfills military orders). But the most amazing thing is that they have the same accounting department. And "pouring" money from one division into another does not present any difficulties.
    Lockheed Martin receives unthinkable orders. And disgustingly fulfills them. It's so bad that in Russia the Accounts Chamber would have already taken care of it.
    The article is very weak. For the Military Review it is unacceptably weak.
  36. leers
    leers 24 July 2020 13: 00
    0
    Another "everything is gone". It's time to kind of wrap myself in a sheet and stomp into the cemetery ... And as always in such cases - not a single suggestion on how to rectify the situation.
  37. shonsu
    shonsu 24 July 2020 15: 19
    0
    Thought - everything is gone! the plaster cast is removed, the client is leaving ... It would be better if it was given to pregnant pensioners.
    Maybe Brazil, Canada too, China, all kinds of Yapas. Even Turks, Iranians and Saudis are trying. But we are not given. We only have seditious articles that work well. So? Author..
  38. user
    user 24 July 2020 20: 20
    0
    And what do we have at the end?


    But really WHAT?

    The author recalled the history of the development of aviation, the history of the Soviet Union, the system of Soviet production and the Soviet economy, and much more. He poured numbers, comparisons, even tried to compare salaries and the number of technical staff. This is to make us realize the depth of our wretchedness. The comparison with America is especially touching.

    So what next and what conclusions did he make?
    To be honest (personally for myself), I did not find any conclusions and suggestions there, except for the desire to sprinkle ashes on my head and repent, repent and jump into a happy capitalist future.

    But seriously, everything is much more complicated and simpler at the same time. Firstly, even comparing the largest economy in the world, where if someone does not remember - there was no war for 200 years, but there were (as the incumbent president of the United States stated) two magnificent won world wars (in which, by the way, their economy rose), is not entirely correct. Our country is only trying to take its place in the world economic system, by the way, we have only 2,5% of the world economy.
    It seems that this is not relevant in this article, but this is only for USE graduates.
    Firstly, two times in a century, our state was destroyed almost to the ground, and again it seems to have nothing to do with the article. But if you strain the convolutions a little, then you begin to understand the foundations of that state of aircraft construction, which the author subjected to complete defeat and condemnation. And with numbers, with all kinds of comparisons so that readers understand the abyss separating us.
    Firstly, after the end of the Civil War, if anyone has forgotten, literate (who can just read) according to various sources was no more than 30% of the population, practically no industry (by the way, in many villages beyond the Urals, electricity began to appear only in the 50s). In addition to all this, (as they wrote in Soviet newspapers) we were surrounded by a hostile capitalist world and of course all kinds of embargoes and sanctions (again for those who don’t remember), we even bought any equipment and machines only for grain deliveries (remember the Holodomor of the 30s ).
    All this led to the fact that the USSR did not enter the world economy, where, by the way, we were not allowed under any pretexts, and was forced to produce everything necessary for aircraft construction in our country. That is why we have such an aircraft industry, take the same dispersion of aircraft factories throughout the country and the number of aircraft design bureaus (also throughout the country), and not like the bourgeoisie, and all this is money, money, money.
    As for the current state, there have been all sorts of attempts to enter the world economy and the world division of labor. But no one is waiting for us there and no one needs us there, because in the current situation we are only competitors, whom no one ever expected. By the way, Superjet was such an attempt, but everyone saw what the world division of labor, world patent law and so on at the present time and in the current situation is.
    But everything returned to normal, embargo, sanctions. The only thing that saves us so far is the result of the atomic project that was supervised by Lavrenty Beria, otherwise we would be like Moldova or Georgia, or even divided into several parts.
    This is all, so to speak, the general condition in the country and about why the aviation industry of our country appeared in this form.
    As for the current situation in the aircraft industry, this is the result of our position in the world system of states at the current price for an independent policy. Moreover, when we switched to capitalist value systems, all this could not but affect the aircraft industry.
    Well, in what other country can an international journalist manage space, and what such peaks can be conquered with such leaders? I don't even want to write about other such cases.
    And how often do the management and technical managers change, defining the strategic goals and objectives of the development of the aviation industry on the example of those countries and companies that were considered by the author in the article?
    Only by answering these questions can we talk about some predictions. By the way, I did not even mention someone's personal financial interest.

    And the most important thing is that the entire transformation, both of the state and of the aviation industry, which began in the early 90s, is still far from complete.

    And now no one will say for sure how it will end. ... ... ...
  39. calm
    calm 25 July 2020 19: 09
    0
    I worked at a Soviet aircraft plant from 1979 to 1991. There were no food preferences at all. And as for the Tu-334 - I was present at the conversation at the State Research Institute of Civil Aviation, when the leading test pilot said: the plane must have a cruising Mach = 0,85, but it barely squeezes out 0,81. The wing needs to be redesigned to increase aerodynamic performance. And the new wing is a new plane. I agree about the Superjet, but thanks to it, the Rybinsk Design Bureau gained experience in the design and construction of modern engines.
  40. KJIETyc
    KJIETyc 25 July 2020 22: 20
    +1
    PJSC Sukhoi Company is the largest Russian aviation holding with about 20 thousand people.
    165 (500) Boeing. Fantastic journalist
  41. Comrade Michael
    Comrade Michael 26 July 2020 21: 16
    -4
    According to the article, after college, my children have to go abroad, live and work ...
  42. Comrade Michael
    Comrade Michael 26 July 2020 21: 18
    -3
    "will confirm: in similar industries" they "have much less people, and wages are much higher." --- I already heard this song in the 90s in Mil KB. They decreased from 4500 to 500 people, but neither salaries nor results increased significantly ...
  43. Comrade Michael
    Comrade Michael 26 July 2020 21: 24
    -2
    Sad stupidity. With watering of the USSR it is necessary, The plate at the end is generally a waste. How are these numbers obtained ???? Calculation methodology, comrades? Especially the column output per employee ....))) It's like not feeding a sheep, and then scolding it for being skinny ...))) Let it be known to you. A new main rotor for the W-3 Sokol helicopter in the mid-90s was developed by only 20 people completely in electronic form in six months, which the Poles could not do. In general, the main thing to say is that if you invest a little (and we invest very little and all the new items from the Soviet backlog), then the output is zero. And also add that purchases by the state and large airlines are made in ridiculous volumes (normal, of course, for a state like Poland or Romania). Hence the low purchases abroad, no one will buy large quantities of equipment that is not in service with our army ... Wet, start over. I thought we ended these crazy conversations. I also worked as an analyst at the beginning of the 20s in KB (and not bad by the way), I thought everyone had already finished it, and we have been walking in circles for XNUMX years ???
  44. The comment was deleted.
  45. lazy
    lazy 1 August 2020 04: 31
    0
    it's hard to break into the world market. if you remove the countries of the socialist camp that had nowhere to go, where were the Soviet civilian planes sold for real money and not loans?
  46. Valentin spagis
    Valentin spagis 3 August 2020 13: 31
    0
    Russia needs to build its own aircraft. Since at the moment of any aggravation of relations with the West, it may be left without aviation at all.
  47. kingair09
    kingair09 12 August 2020 17: 12
    0
    ... the misfortune of the aviation industry ... however, like the entire economy - total corruption ...
    .. looking "around" you come to the conclusion that the biggest profit comes from "mosquito aviation" - and we don't have this segment at all, but the trick is simple - for example, the revival of mass production of the same PO-2 - would give the desired effect ... believe me they would sell like donuts
  48. Python 57
    Python 57 15 August 2020 22: 23
    0
    Idiotic article. The Superjet is a great car. The Sukhovites, who really had no experience in civil aircraft construction, received powerful support from TsAGI. People from TU and IL were involved.
  49. Ruslan Nikolaev
    Ruslan Nikolaev 16 August 2020 16: 32
    0
    I'm wondering. For instance. If an aircraft designer uses what he has at his fingertips and makes a very good plane, then he sucks. And an American designer who benefits from the achievement of the whole world means a genius. The author you have gone crazy. The highest degree of any engineer, in any profile of engineering, to achieve the best result from shit and sticks, while surpassing the competitor. Here, the designers of the USSR are head and shoulders above the engineers of the United States. And so in fact. Why, despite the sanctions and other obstacles, Russia is the world's second largest supplier of military aircraft. Unlike the United States, Russia has solid spokes in the wheels. So I do not advise crumbling a loaf. to the Russian engineering school. Especially when you consider that a lot of campaigns in the United States were founded by Russian engineers with Russian education. Russian designers have always found a way out of the ass itself, unlike designers from the United States.
  50. wisealtair
    wisealtair 17 August 2020 13: 45
    0
    Again the same kitchen nonsense. Tired of reading this crap.
    SSJ is produced in the same way as all other aircraft in any airlines in the world. There is the same "hodgepodge". Both Boeing and Airbus. The author is not satisfied with the fact that we have finally started to produce airplanes on the same principle as others do?
    "Not very good technically" - you mean? What is this kitchen saying based on? What are the TECHNICAL arguments? How did the author assess the "design quality"? Is he familiar with the project?
    Sukhoi began to produce a passenger plane - so what? The first IL passenger aircraft appeared only in 1963 - before that, IL had been designing only military aircraft for 30 years. Tu, too, began exclusively with a military man, like Yak. In general, we have never had a single purely civil design bureau. All design bureaus began with the military as the main type of activity.
    Interestingly, which passenger liner the author considers "related" to the domestic aviation industry? The notorious Tu 334? There is the same hodgepodge, moreover, on Ukrainian engines, the competent production of which could not yet be organized. and after 2014, the Ukrainian aviation industry was completely covered with a deaf Maidan basin and ceased to exist in principle. Those. with this supposedly "patriotic" smollet, we would simply be left without an airplane at all - that's all.
    The whole article is illiterate nonsense.