Russia invites Pakistan to invest in Sukhoi Jetliner program.

[MultaniGuy]

pretty sure they can handle the costs

Yeah like Comac.

Lets do a joint venture with the Chinese on Comac.

 

[fitpOsitive]

Pakistani private sector may be involved. There are many giants in Pakistani business industry who can surely arrange investments, if things are properly handled e.g Mansha, Dewan, Dadabhai, Sherazi etc.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Pakistani private sector may be involved. There are many giants in Pakistani business industry who can surely arrange investments, if things are properly handled e.g Mansha, Dewan, Dadabhai, Sherazi etc.

I am mainly interested in the Comac program of China. I hope Pakistan could do a joint venture with China on Comac.

 

[war&peace]

Yah but it reminds me of big 3 american car makers resting on their laurels....rather than dynamically researching to stay in the game long term (and fend off japanese and germans). Trent is a legacy platform so of course it will carry its own inertia for a while....for a good long while most likely....but that just means its assured bronze overall.

Bulk of engine throughput made is not in the trent range....rather its for 737 and A320 size aircraft where CFM dominates easily....and PW (esp with IAE) is 2nd....and this is heavy RnD throughput as well compared to larger aircraft (given these are where the margins in performance become razor thin compared to the larger buffer offered for long distance/high capacity aircraft where you can amortise long term spending better).

By total revenue stream (current and projected) the ranking is unsurprisingly also as I listed earlier. Its a question of 2 guys being well represented in all engine size disciplines and one largely focused on only one....which means they are constantly defending their turf but not challenging the others one. Long term means you have to really put in the RnD specialisation to prosper well like that, but I don't see RR doing it to the level needed currently.

Well, I would say that I'm not privy to a lot of details since such R'n'D is kept secret for all the right reasons. However, I have studied propulsion and I'm aware of the fact that Trent is a revolutionary design and the legacy plays a secondary role. It is a gearless design and the cooling implemented in it is much better than anything competition has to offer, its suppression of shockwaves makes it really quieter than other engines of similar dimensions, use 3d compressor aerodynamic design to achieve higher efficiency...all combine to make it a revolutionary engine.

Of course at elevated temperatures even the best materials are pushed to their limits and it is need novel engineering to dissipate the excess heat and use it efficiently.

For amortisation, you don't need long haul flights in general, even short hauls can have good ROI but A380s and B 747, 777ERs, 787 are made for long hauls and especially the A380 will never be used a regional jet while A320, B 737 etc can amortise much better on shorter and medium haul flights.

 

[fatman17]

And then there is this: https://timesofislamabad.com/pakistan-russia-gas-pipeline-project-in-doldrums/2017/06/06/

Looks like a PR thingy at best.

 

[Arsalan]

Yah but it reminds me of big 3 american car makers resting on their laurels....rather than dynamically researching to stay in the game long term (and fend off japanese and germans). Trent is a legacy platform so of course it will carry its own inertia for a while....for a good long while most likely....but that just means its assured bronze overall.

Bulk of engine throughput made is not in the trent range....rather its for 737 and A320 size aircraft where CFM dominates easily....and PW (esp with IAE) is 2nd....and this is heavy RnD throughput as well compared to larger aircraft (given these are where the margins in performance become razor thin compared to the larger buffer offered for long distance/high capacity aircraft where you can amortise long term spending better).

By total revenue stream (current and projected) the ranking is unsurprisingly also as I listed earlier. Its a question of 2 guys being well represented in all engine size disciplines and one largely focused on only one....which means they are constantly defending their turf but not challenging the others one. Long term means you have to really put in the RnD specialisation to prosper well like that, but I don't see RR doing it to the level needed currently.

dont you think that smaller faster and more evonomical to fly planes are the future of aviation? Airlines are more and more interested in these compared to larger aircrafts now. What do you think boss?

I am mainly interested in the Comac program of China. I hope Pakistan could do a joint venture with China on Comac.

I am not sure how much we have to gain from heavily investing (as JV) in a commmercial jet liner program. There are a couple of concerns:
a) Pakistan itslef is not a huge customer of these machines. Our airline sucks and we are not going to get to a level where we are competing with the ME aviation powers. May be it is there location and security sotuation but they are now way ahead for ANYONE to catch up. Plus understand that it is a matter of survival for them. The airline business is there secomd main source of income after the fast dimnishing oil trade. They will give it all they have. Secondly our donestic air traffic is not that big eitherr that we need dozens of planes for that. So in short, we wont be a big customer of those planes.
b) Export market is dominated by Boeing and airbus and that too is not going to change very soon. Both China and Russia have an advantage that they will be using a major part of their production themselves while the slowly get eastablished in export market. What do we have to offer? We cant even go and say to them to do a JV since we are going to buy 30 planes for ourself.


This is just an analysis and a personal opinion however.

Looks like a PR thingy at best.

It does

 

[Nilgiri]

dont you think that smaller faster and more evonomical to fly planes are the future of aviation? Airlines are more and more interested in these compared to larger aircrafts now. What do you think boss?

Yup definitely. If you look at air transport, its already heavily skewed to short and mid haul now. More personalised haul will be a more dynamic growth sector as well for sure. There will be much more competition to the hub+spoke model with time. From about 2020 onwards if you are into stocks, try picking companies affiliated with smaller airport development....they should have very good returns imo.

However, I have studied propulsion and I'm aware of the fact that Trent is a revolutionary design and the legacy plays a secondary role. It is a gearless design and the cooling implemented in it is much better than anything competition has to offer, its suppression of shockwaves makes it really quieter than other engines of similar dimensions, use 3d compressor aerodynamic design to achieve higher efficiency...all combine to make it a revolutionary engine.

Well its own success is also its (somewhat) downfall, there are many notable technologies it has that cannot be scaled downwards to where the highest raw cycles (esp accounting for TO max rev frequency) are in operation.

RR went for the premium in a way, but missed the mass-economy. It shows in the revenue and buffers they have access to now for further RnD.

I am not questioning the very valid points you make about the Trent. But its like comparing BMW with Toyota. They are operating on different economic wavelengths (with overlap only on the premium side)....and the raw growth always favours the grounded bang for the buck. But the market (aircraft engines) is way smaller than automotive, so the big premium engine company has to find a way to compete at the larger base of the pyramid (which needs several material and design related RnD as well completely different to large engines)....but RR is so far bunkering down instead and riding what they have and maybe hope to grow a big enough buffer downwind to invest into the base (or some future bigger premium). Well lets see if it works out for them is all I will say on that.

For amortisation, you don't need long haul flights in general, even short hauls can have good ROI but A380s and B 747, 777ERs, 787 are made for long hauls and especially the A380 will never be used a regional jet while A320, B 737 etc can amortise much better on shorter and medium haul flights.

I'm talking more from an RnD perspective compared to operations side perspective. Short and mid haul needs much more crucial iteration response given the high frequency cycle % ratio (because of more TO regime/cruise regime compared to long haul). Right now I'm working on a new retrofit analysis for the combustor area of existing engines (after earlier proving a worthy increase in efficiency)...this would never ever be done for a trent, because the core RnD buffers are already largely commited because such engines are always bought in large packages on large aircraft, with specific stated performance envelope (because putting a large aircraft out of commision for overhaul etc is much much more expensive than a mid or short hauler....among other reasons). The pathway for this kind of RnD multiplier effect is thus very high for GE, middling for PW (but improving in last 5 years) and quite low for RR.

This means RR does not have the same amount of luxury PW and GE have in iteration based RnD that carries over to their next major design (their RnD based amortisation is largely stagnant as soon as the engine has frozen design). It is thus far more compartmentalised in RR...its not really their fault (RR engineers)....but its a high level decision they took in the 90s (right after trent program kicked into gear)....with expectation of a very different market today than what it actually is. If they can pull a bunny out of the hat anyway somehow, then kudos to them....but to me thats like expecting to win at the lottery.....as I see it from where I sit interacting with those that worked there and also the general market and revenue dynamics.

 

[war&peace]

dont you think that smaller faster and more evonomical to fly planes are the future of aviation? Airlines are more and more interested in these compared to larger aircrafts now. What do you think boss?

There is a term called "economy of scale" and that favours large and wide bodied jetliners on the long routes so large airplane will remain a viable option for long non-stop flights. In addition, the larger airplane are more comfortable and can accomodate a lot of amenities. For example on a direct flight from Doha to Sydney takes 14+ hrs or from Dallas to Sydney takes 17 hr and staying on airplane for that long leaves the travellers extremely tired at the end of the flight but an airplane like A380 with an ample space to walk will be far more comfortable and believe that is my experience since I had to travel a lot from Atlanta to Sydney in 2015.

Superfast and smaller long range hypersonic business jets may become available but those will be extremely expensive and only cater for the ultra-rich people only.

On shorter routes of course smaller jets are more popular and economical. Passengars also don't mind sitting in a cramped space for 2-4 hrs..

 

[Arsalan]

There is a term called "economy of scale" and that favours large and wide bodied jetliners on the long routes so large airplane will remain a viable option for long non-stop flights. In addition, the larger airplane are more comfortable and can accommodate a lot of amenities. For example on a direct flight from Doha to Sydney takes 14+ hrs or from Dallas to Sydney takes 17 hr and staying on airplane for that long leaves the travelers extremely tired at the end of the flight but an airplane like A380 with an ample space to walk will be far more comfortable and believe that is my experience since I had to travel a lot from Atlanta to Sydney in 2015.

Superfast and smaller long range hypersonic business jets may become available but those will be extremely expensive and only cater for the ultra-rich people only.

On shorter routes of course smaller jets are more popular and economical. Passengars also don't mind sitting in a cramped space for 2-4 hrs..

I doubt that the airlines have not heard about "economy of scale". They must have and still they are shifting to smaller faster and more fuel efficient planes. There is a reason you do not see Boeing following up on a mammoth airplane to compete with A380.

I agree that on longer routes the larger A380 class aircraft may be better but to be honest, how many passengers you see traveling on 15+ flights compared to 5-7 hour flights? The percentage will be VERY LOW, may be even in single digits. Just look at the domestic air traffic in America to get an idea. THAT MARKET IS HUG E compared to long haul 12-14 hour flights now. That is why i say that the long route-large aircraft market is really slow and small and we are not likely to see more huge plane models. People are shifting to small transit flights, the airlines are accommodation as well and shifting with the new trends.

 

[war&peace]

I doubt that the airlines have not heard about "economy of scale". They must have and still they are shifting to smaller faster and more fuel efficient planes. There is a reason you do not see Boeing following up on a mammoth airplane to compete with A380.

I agree that on longer routes the larger A380 class aircraft may be better but to be honest, how many passengers you see traveling on 15+ flights compared to 5-7 hour flights? The percentage will be VERY LOW, may be even in single digits. Just look at the domestic air traffic in America to get an idea. THAT MARKET IS HUG E compared to long haul 12-14 hour flights now. That is why i say that the long route-large aircraft market is really slow and small and we are not likely to see more huge plane models. People are shifting to small transit flights, the airlines are accommodation as well and shifting with the new trends.

I don't doubt them either but I was addressing you. Do you know that how many orders Airbus has for A380s? and it is still finding difficult to deliver on time and large airlines like Emirates are operating more than a hundered of these airplanes. Now there is no shortcut to Australia from any other continent. The percentage might be low but it is still growing and one cannot convince a person who have to go to Japan or Brazil from Sweden to visit Denmark instead because it is closer and you will be surprised that how many people from Japan visit Finland and Sweden every year... Similarly there are multiple destinations without direct flights and passengers have to take connecting flights..

Boeing has revamped 747 into 747-800 longer range version with new engines. The challenge A380 faces is that most of the airports/runways in the world are not fit for its landing and I doubt as of now that any airport in Pakistan can handle it. But I guess in near future new Isb airport, Gawadar airport and Karachi and Lahore will be able to handle it.

But of course there are more passengers on the shorter routes but to let you know that below 500 -750 km range, the normal high speed trains beat airplanes and a few airports in Sweden have been closed down or converted into flying cubs for private and hobby aviation industry because the new high speed trains put them out of the business. In future maglevs will extend this range to 1500-2000 km. For crossing the English channel, Eurostar is normally the first choice for the commuting between Paris and London.

 

[Arsalan]

I don't doubt them either but I was addressing you. Do you know that how many orders Airbus has for A380s? and it is still finding difficult to deliver on time and large airlines like Emirates are operating more than a hundered of these airplanes. Now there is no shortcut of reach Australia from any other continent. The percentage might be low but it is still growing and one cannot convince a person who have to go to Japan or Brazil from Sweden to visit Denmark instead because it is closer and you will be surprised that how many people from Japan visit Finland and Sweden every year... Similarly there are multiple destinations without direct flights and passengers have to take connecting flights..

Bro i know A380 have a long list of orders, reason being, IT IS THE ONLY PLANE IN THAT CATEGORY NOW. Compare the numbers with the other short/medium haul planes and you will get an idea of what i am talking about. There is a reason that despite seeing huge orders for A380 Boeing isn't going for a plane to compete in the same market and are more focused on smaller planes. That is all i am trying to say here.

Boeing has revamped 747 into 747-800 longer range version with new engines. The challenge A380 faces is that most of the airports/runways in the world are not fit for its landing and I doubt as of now that any airport in Pakistan can handle it. But I guess in near future new Isb airport, Gawadar airport and Karachi and Lahore will be able to handle it.

Yes they may be but do you see that traffic between Islamabad and, lets say, Qatar will get to a level that it will need A380. Most airlines will keep using smaller planes, not just for this route but for a majority of others as well.

But of course there are more passengers on the shorter routes but to let you know that below 500 -750 km range, the normal high speed trains beat airplanes and a few airports in Sweden have been closed down or converted into flying cubs for private and hobby aviation industry because of the new high speed trains put them out of business. In future maglevs will extend this range to 1500-2000 km. For crossing the English channel, Eurostar is normally the first choice for the commuting between Paris and London.

YES!! This is agree with. Fast trains are going to replace air planes on short routes in next decades or so. But still the air traffic is on continuous increase and there are plenty of routes that will favor smaller short-med haul planes compared to huge planes. It is more about fule efficiency and cost of operating now.

I hope i was able to share exactly what i am trying to say here.

 

[war&peace]

Yes they may be but do you see that traffic between Islamabad and, lets say, Qatar will get to a level that it will need A380. Most airlines will keep using smaller planes, not just for this route but for a majority of others as well.

Did we miss something? Didn't we already agree that A380s are for long haul flights so I really don't see any valid reason for using A380 for this route, rather multiple flights of smaller regional and medium sized jets
like A330 or A350 will be great on this route.
However, if the economy grows and a lot of investors invest in Pakistan then a few direct flights of A380s per week from North America and Europe will become far more economical and even a direct flight between Gwader and Beijing can become viable at some point. Because businessmen always prefer direct and comfortable flights. While most of the tourists prefer cheaper ticket so they will be fine with connecting flights if those are cheaper.

 

[Arsalan]

Did we miss something? Didn't we already agree that A380s are for long haul flights so I really don't see any valid reason for using A380 for this route, rather multiple flights of smaller regional and medium sized jets
like A330 or A350 will be great on this route.
However, if the economy grows and a lot of investors invest in Pakistan then a few direct flights of A380s per week from North America and Europe will become far more economical and even a direct flight between Gwader and Beijing can become viable at some point. Because businessmen always prefer direct and comfortable flights. While most of the tourists prefer cheaper ticket so they will be fine with connecting flights if those are cheaper.

No sir, i was trying to point out that:

1. Qatar - Islamabad is not for A380, NOT EVEN if the number of passengers grow dramatically (even then multiple dream liners are better suited for the job)
2. The passenger between Islamabad - North America are not more than a drop in the ocean when compared to short-med haul flights. This is what i am saying from start sir.

The huge planes like A380 are one of a kind and there is not big project going on to produce a competitor, for the reasons stated earlier, IT IS JUST NOT WORTH IT. Smaller, quicker and more fuel efficient air planes catering short - med haul routes are the thing of present and future. Days of 747 are gone!

 

[Army research]

This is old news basically it refers to the stealth version of SU-35 which Russia is working on. Russia is offering us many things now it depends on us which we want to pursue.

What the actual ****

 

[Zarvan]

What the actual ****

Russia has already offered us MI 28 and 3 Air Defence systems and also ready to sell there future soldier program