[QUOTE=EUFighter;473692]There is a major difference between service intervals and service life. The airframe of most Russian aircraft are built like brick sh**houses. And I know enough Russian aircraft designers to know that they design the airframe to be tough. The area that they fall down on are the systems, hence why they are pushing through a moderistaion of their long range assets. But following the collapse of the USSR a problem the Russian face is that the integrated supply chain is no longer there. Many component where made in other countries some of which are not on the Russian friends list like Ukraine and Georgia. Also many of the more specialist company no longer exist. A case in hand are the engines for the Tu160, there is a manufacturer but they cannot supply the numbers needed for the current fleet. Neither in spares or in terms of new engines.
Russian manufacturers fall down on their supply of spare parts. They had the luxury of mass orders in the Cold war and they would simply strip aircraft a to keep aircraft b flying,ad nauseam, until the supply chain caught up. It is still the same to this day. They do not, as a rule, build up a spares stock like Western manufacturers have done since WW 2.
In the West, the likes of Boeing will calculate the consumption of parts from field reports so that it knows how much stock to build up, yet avoid having it's warehouse full of unmoving stock. Third parties will supply the consumables like tyres and oil filters but exclusive Boeing parts such as wing fairings and control surfaces will be manufacturered to the order of at least 10% above the number of airframes and up to as much as 30% if an item is in high demand. The Russian system was more of a " buy one airframe, get one support kit with it". Friends who have dealt with the Russian system as it exists now regard it as sheer hard work to get spares made and then delivered, compared to dealing with Western companies. Western companies don't always get it right (Agusta, Im looking at you) but they are beacons of virtue compared to Russians. Just because their aircraft tend to be rugged, doesnt mean they can't be grounded from lack of spares.
Russian manufacturers fall down on their supply of spare parts. They had the luxury of mass orders in the Cold war and they would simply strip aircraft a to keep aircraft b flying,ad nauseam, until the supply chain caught up. It is still the same to this day. They do not, as a rule, build up a spares stock like Western manufacturers have done since WW 2.
In the West, the likes of Boeing will calculate the consumption of parts from field reports so that it knows how much stock to build up, yet avoid having it's warehouse full of unmoving stock. Third parties will supply the consumables like tyres and oil filters but exclusive Boeing parts such as wing fairings and control surfaces will be manufacturered to the order of at least 10% above the number of airframes and up to as much as 30% if an item is in high demand. The Russian system was more of a " buy one airframe, get one support kit with it". Friends who have dealt with the Russian system as it exists now regard it as sheer hard work to get spares made and then delivered, compared to dealing with Western companies. Western companies don't always get it right (Agusta, Im looking at you) but they are beacons of virtue compared to Russians. Just because their aircraft tend to be rugged, doesnt mean they can't be grounded from lack of spares.
Comment