Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
There's more to real news than a news release.
Open Forum: Week of Jan. 19
Jan. 19, 2026: LNA’s Comments Open Forum allows Readers opportunities to comment about any post (note, we said “Post”, not any “Topic”). All comments will be held for review and Moderation per our new policy. The Open Forum enables Readers to Comment on paywall articles (to the extent the paywall preview is open to all readers).
Maintain civility and follow Reader Comment rules.
A new Open Forum will be posted weekly.
LNA had an article last week on COMAC.
This morning, UAC is on Flight Global:
“United Aircraft to display import-substituted SJ-100 and Il-114-300 at Indian air show”
“United Aircraft is to display its import-substituted Yakovlev SJ-100 and the new Ilyushin Il-114-300 internationally for the first time, at the upcoming Wings India 2026 show in Hyderabad.
“The SJ-100 – featuring a Russian-sourced cabin interior for serial production – will feature alongside the Il-114-300, which will also have a fitted passenger cabin and will participate in the flight programme.
“United Aircraft claims regional airlines have shown “significant interest” in the company’s aircraft and demonstrations of both types to “local aviation industry specialists” are planned during the show, supported by Russia’s trade mission to India.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/united-aircraft-to-display-import-substituted-sj-100-and-il-114-300-at-indian-air-show/165985.article
The HAL agreement from last year envisages Indian manufacture of up to 200 SJ-100s to serve India and the Indian Ocean region.
That represents significant lost revenue for western OEMs.
On the other hand: last week, Adani said that it’s partnering with Embraer to manufacture Embraer’s RJs in India.
BRICS is enlarging its aviation industry.
Let’s see if the new SJ-100 becomes a more successful product than the previous SSJ-100.
And let’s see if 2026 brings CJ-1000A cert for COMAC.
How can a downgraded SJ-100 become more successful than the SSJ-100 with modern western engines and equipment? I guess the point about building the jets in India is to avoid sanctions for certain equipment but then there is still the issue with lack of support the old jet had even without sanctions.
Brazil and China are going to produce more civil aircraft jets but I have many doubts about R I S in BRICS. In how many decades do you expect India to produce 200 SJ-100? I doubt the airlines ordering the SJ-100 are major airlines. Many airlines operating SJ-100 ceased to exist.
“How can a downgraded SJ-100 become more successful than the SSJ-100”
In terms of customer support / after-sales service.
And — related — in terms of international sales.
===
“In how many decades do you expect India to produce 200 SJ-100?”
That question — of itself — seems to suggest that India isn’t capable of industrial prowess.
In that regard, you might want to check out how quickly and thoroughly India recently modernized its vast rail network.
I won’t comment on India’s railway network.
I remember a lot of trouble India had and has with military projects like fighter jets, tanks and submarines. Especially the submarines are noteworthy. India started building Soviet submarines in the 1970s and western ones since 1990s. Until now India wasn’t capable to build its own submarines. South Korea started also around the 1990s but already designed and commissioned their own submarines. India produces the Tejas while South Korea will soon commission KAI KF-21 Boramae. I therefore have my doubts about Inida’s industrial prowess. – Even without sanctions no more than 36 SSJ-100 were produced per year. That’s no significant lost revenue for western OEM especially then you look at the buyers .
Not a good idea to forecast today’s and tomorrow’s developments based on what happened in a very different world back in the 70s and 90s…
===
“Indian Aerospace Manufacturing On The Rise”
“The global aerospace industry is undergoing significant transformation, with major international players like Airbus, Collins Aerospace, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce increasingly turning to India to source critical aircraft components.
“This shift is a response to recent supply chain disruptions, and a testament to India’s growing design, engineering and system integration capabilities. With its robust manufacturing ecosystem, skilled workforce and competitive costs, India is positioning itself as a key player in the global aerospace supply chain.”
“Aerospace component manufacturers in India, particularly those based in Bengaluru — a city widely regarded as India’s aerospace capital — are experiencing exponential growth. Companies such as Hical Technologies and JJG Aero are leading the charge.
“Hical Technologies, for instance, has set an ambitious target of doubling its aerospace division revenue to Rs 5 billion (US$ 57.57 million) within the next three years. Similarly, JJG Aero has witnessed a meteoric rise in revenue, growing from US$ 2 million over 12 years to US$ 20 million in just six years.
“Analysts have said that there is a fundamental change in perception — Indian aerospace firms are no longer just contract manufacturers; they are now seen as strategic partners capable of delivering high-quality products and services at scale.”
https://thesecretariat.in/article/indian-aerospace-manufacturing-on-the-rise
===
But fine, no need to flog the subject to death — there’s just a difference of opinion.
All spot on points.
The bottom line is Wish is not reality. India does not need one regional mfg let alone two. Its Airport infrastructure is limited and its a LCA market.
A bit of intersing reading on the Train Crash in Spain. The Rail joints were non welded.
Shocking that they run high speed over non welded joints. A case of uneven tech, one is state of the art High Speed Train and the US quit using jointed rails some time back (and we have no truly high speed trains, they do that on freight ops, aka most of the US system is freight)
So call X the Indian Rail system (other than US supplied locomotives I know nothing about it). Call Y the huge regional jet market in and outside India.
X success does not mean anything for Y. You listed a number of high tech programs that are failures. In my view more aircraft than Subs but its a relevant metric comparing it to South Korea.
India has a number of major successes, no disagreement.
Each area is based on its background and where or how the Government interacts with it as well as the India
Bureaucracy . Military jet development has been an abject failure. Fingers in the pie, made in India over national security etc.
India can in fact mfg aircraft parts, a large number of SU-27 types/derivatives have been built there. No one is going to say how good or bad they are.
I have read the retraction to when they got Western Equipment and its been, oh wow, this stuff works.
So, bottom line is regionals built in India is wishful thinking.
An MC-21 built in India with Western engines and system? Clearly that category has a large market but you have to not only build it but support it. India has no background in that area.
Re: supply chain / line rates / general production ramp-up:
“Can Humanoid Robots Build Aircraft? UBTECH Partners with Airbus”
“UBTECH recently announced it has signed a service agreement with Airbus, the European aerospace giant. The aircraft manufacturer has purchased UBTECH’s latest industrial humanoid robot, the Walker S2, for deployment in its manufacturing facilities. This move marks the first time humanoid robots have entered the production ecosystem of a leading global aviation manufacturer.
“Under the agreement, the two companies will use this purchase as a foundation to explore and expand specific applications for humanoid robots in complex, precision aviation manufacturing scenarios.”
https://autonews.gasgoo.com/articles/icv/can-humanoid-robots-build-aircraft-ubtech-partners-with-airbus-2013268627837259777
Europe is preparing tariffs on US goods that worth 93 billion euros per FT
There’s a major sh#tstorm brewing in transatlantic relations, and it’s going to have major and long-lasting repercussions.
Expect the aviation landscape to be hit hard.
Here we go:
Wall Street Journal: “BRUSSELS—If President Trump follows through with a threat to put new tariffs on European allies over Greenland, some $100 billion worth of American exports—from Boeing aircraft to bourbon whiskey—could get caught in the crossfire.”
https://www.wsj.com/business/the-100-billion-of-u-s-goods-at-risk-of-tariffs-in-trumps-greenland-push-d7fbda31
Trump’s 10/25% “Greenland tariffs” comprise “all products imported into the USA”…and, thus, also aerospace.
Boeing sources many parts from Europe.
Read this [when there’s smoke…?]
https://bsky.app/profile/jonostrower.com/post/3mcv2dtlfoc2f
Editor–this is about the C919 EASA certification.
Interesting!
May also be a reference to engines: Safran/MTU may wish to set up some sort of venture with AECC.
I read recently that the main C919 certification hold-up at EASA is a line-by-line inspection of the C919’s FBW software. Other than that, there appears to be no fundamental roadblock to European cert.
My backpack easily fit under the seat in front of me on a recent – first time – Breeze A220-300 flight.
This astonishing experience contrasts with my often failed efforts to fit the backpack under a United or American 737/a320, which are often smaller than normal due to hardware additions for power and/or entertainment.
Further, the rest room on the Breeze flight was somewhat spacious compared to the super cramped space on offer from the legacy players.
How do the economics of an overstuffed 737/a320 (designed for 150 seats or less back in the day) compare to an A220-300?
@Zellmer The CASM of the smaller A220-300 is about the same as the larger 737-8/320neo.
How much of the 737/a320 competitiveness is due to adding rows over time and therefore squeezing us all in so many ways? Legs, bags, circulation, boarding, deplaning, supplies and so on?
I happen to agree with Abalone here. India is capable of building complex things at low rates. Their Tejas is a good piece of Kit if flown out of ground effect (sorry). The interesting thing is that they have difficulty at scale. Once you get the visionary hands off the product, the average worker can’t perform because they are chronically underpaid and under skilled. They have silos of greatness, but not enough in not enough places. The Tata Nano is high on the list of examples. It was the near perfect car for India. It was designed to replace 3 wheeled vehicles in metropolitan areas. It was very well done but when the time came to do them at rate, the process broke down. I was actually looking forward to getting one if they came stateside. Those that pooh pooh Indian craftsmanship need to spend a bit of time on you tube where barefoot guys in backyard foundries repair large trucks by machining a near endless conglomeration of scrap into truck parts, or Brass musical Instruments, or bicycles, its amazing. The Artistry on some of these repairs is staggering. They cast metal in unbelievable volumes, nearly anything, one at a time, without much in the way of documentation in honest to God OSHA crime scenes with dirt floors, no PPE and molten steel around bare feet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCyDWOzvYPs
The latter part is not admirable, people should not be treated like that. You do that stuff out of desperation.
I had my name in for a Tata (I think) Diesel Pickup that was supposed to come to the US. I was really interested to see what PI can do out of India.
They are importing a sort of non road legal Jeep like rig for off road use up here (most of Alaska is OFF ROAD). A hunting trip is a rig pulling a trailer with a 4 wheeler on the back (read that as various wheeled and tracked vheicles) to get you close and then a 20 mile off road trip into the hunting area (well one that has not bee denuded of game yet).
Its a well built rig. Impressive quality.
But other than that, what do we see that is built in India? A lot of Support centers but that is a whole different kettle.
As I noted, India is an odd mix of good thing vs the failed Tejas program. 25 years to get it into production?
I did find a logic bust in my initial thoughts.
India has built fighters (Russian) that seemed to be at least adequate (not like anyone anywhere would admit not). They were handed the drawings as it were and moved into production.
They seem to be working to building Rafael. Far better to modernize their Air Force with buys while they work up to builds.
Copies of the E2 or the Russkie jet might well be doable.
The real issue is what it gets India and why? As was noted by two of us, India is not a hot bed of regional jets nor is Asia in general.
On the other hand, Sukoi failed on support and I don’t see that changing sans India revives the engine and rest of Western kit and builds to that and figures out how to support it.
E2 again as noted is a duplicate in a market that has no use for either one in any quantity.
I saw the same aspects you bring up in the Philipines. They were mater craftsmen for building models of US Military Aircraft. I got to see them in person, it was stunning in two regards.
1. The part that caught my eye was the broken bits of files, saw blades and other items I could no ID they got out of the Clark Air base dump. The formed those into tools to build the models. The artistry of doing that let alone the product was amazing. It also made me want to cry. What talent like that could do with a real chance.
2. The product itself was fantastic for detail and accuracy as well as fit and finish. A plastic model was no more perfect and I never saw a model that had the finish quality they achieved.
UPS MD-11F Crash:
Some new reporting on this and its another example of a failed system.
The had 4 incident of the same support part failing. It was not made mandatory, just a 5 years inspection.
The FAA should have superseded Boeing bulletin into both a mandatory level and sooner.
They clearly had some criteria for the 4 failures as far as timelines go.
It was a year away from a Pylon inspection (5 year total). A more detailed in depth was still some cycles away.
It was deemed not a critical flight issue. I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion. Boeing can propose something but the FAA can and should override it after assessment.
This smack much the same as how the AOA vanes on MCAS were assessed (if you want to call it an easement, in my world it was called Cherry Picking and in this case, data)
There were a couple of corrosion issues found on that aircraft shortly before the crash. There is suspicion in my mind that this assembly was never inspected in a manner that would have caught its degrading.
“Senate whistleblower report alleges years of 787 electrical failures, latent defects, and withheld safety data linked to Air India Flight 171’s crash.”
—
“Central to the Senate discussion was a set of ACARS health‑monitoring messages transmitted by VT‑ANB roughly 15 minutes before the crash.
“These messages—decoded only partially due to Boeing’s proprietary data formats—indicated faults in the aircraft’s electrical system and in all Flight Control Modules (FCMs).
“The flight crew never saw these warnings.
“They were not displayed in the cockpit, nor were they relayed to the pilots by dispatch or maintenance control.
“FAS emphasized this point repeatedly: the aircraft was broadcasting signs of serious system distress, yet the people responsible for flying it were unaware.
“Because Boeing’s decoding manuals are restricted, neither the Safety Matters Foundation nor FAS could determine the precise nature of the faults.
“But the fact that all FCMs were implicated raised immediate concern among senators.
“The FCMs are central to the 787’s fly‑by‑wire architecture; simultaneous faults across all modules are extremely rare and potentially catastrophic.
“FAS argued that these pre‑crash messages must be examined in the context of the aircraft’s long history of electrical anomalies—many of which, they said, were never fully resolved.”
—
“The whistleblower report presented to the Senate included a detailed chronology of VT‑ANB’s maintenance and reliability issues.
“According to documents obtained by FAS, the aircraft began experiencing system failures on the very first day it arrived in India on February 1, 2014.
“Over the next decade, the aircraft accumulated a pattern of faults that FAS described as “wide, confusing, and persistent,” spanning:
– Repeatedly tripping circuit breakers
– Avionics and software faults
– Wire damage
– Smoke and fumes events
– Short circuits
– Loss of electrical current
– Electrical surges
– Overheating of power‑distribution components
– Burning and fire inside critical electrical panels
“FAS told senators that these issues were not isolated or random.
“Instead, they formed a pattern consistent with deeper systemic weaknesses in the 787’s electrical architecture—weaknesses that, in their view, were never adequately addressed by Boeing or Air India.”
https://theaviationhub.co.uk/air-india-flight-171-latent-defects-and-systemic-failures/
I just don’t like the last paragraph in this article:
“The story of VT‑ANB is no longer just an accident report; it is a test of whether the aviation industry has truly learned the lessons of the past decade—or whether history is at risk of repeating itself.”
This is not about aviation industry. This is specific about Boeing.
This story has now hit the mainstream media, with multiple outlets reporting it. For example:
“What brought down Boeing 787 in Ahmedabad? New report flags serious defects in aircraft long before crash.”
“The foundation also says similar failures have been reported in other Boeing 787 jets around the world, including those registered in the United States, Canada and Australia, and that focusing only on pilot actions in the Ahmedabad crash could distract from deeper underlying problems.
“Boeing has consistently maintained that the 787 is safe and reliable, noting that the aircraft type had flown for nearly 15 years before the Ahmedabad tragedy without a fatal accident, and has declined to comment directly on the safety group’s claims.”
https://www.firstpost.com/india/what-brought-down-boeing-787-in-ahmedabad-new-report-flags-serious-defects-in-aircraft-long-before-crash-13971298.html
“China’s COMAC Jets May Be Headed For Europe As EASA Confirms Test Flights”
“As first reported by the South China Morning Post, it has emerged that EASA verification flights concerning the COMAC C919 began back in November of 2025. Two of the European Union Safety Agency’s test pilots were dispatched to China to undertake these missions, which were flown out of Pudong International Airport (PVG) in the Chinese city of Shanghai. The SCMP adds that ‘senior foreign pilots’ are also working on this initiative.
“According to the publication, a source close to the matter has claimed that EASA has “agreed the aircraft is good and safe, (…) other than some teething problems that required tweaks.” These issues allegedly involved the jet’s software, but a source close to the matter has reportedly said that ‘small fixes’ will be sufficient when it comes to rectifying them. The SCMP quotes Jason Li Hanming, an aviation and logistics analyst, as explaining:
“”They will focus on how the aircraft can handle extreme situations for real-time, airborne assessment. It is arguably the most visible part of the certification, signalling the efforts by both Comac and EASA.””
“With test flights representing the third of four parts in EASA’s assessment regime, COMAC has clearly already laid the foundations for an entry into the lucrative European market for its new homegrown single-aisle passenger airliner. This isn’t likely to happen overnight, with the SCMP noting that EASA Executive Director Florian Guillermet said in 2025 that “we should be certifying within three to six years,” adding that COMAC “will succeed.””
https://simpleflying.com/chinas-comac-jets-may-be-headed-for-europe-as-easa-confirms-test-flights/
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3339945/chinas-c919-airliner-put-through-paces-test-pilots-european-aviation-regulator
“..EASA Executive Director Florian Guillermet said in 2025 that “we should be certifying within three to six years,” adding that COMAC “will succeed.”..”
heh.
The lower bound of that time range is now about 2 years away.
Sounds eminently achievable if EASA has already started test flights, and says that only minor software tweaks are required. At this rate, certification may even be (a lot) sooner than 2 years from now.
One wonders which engine version EASA is test flying…
Hello world!
C919-600
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G_L_ACqXgAAtgLr?format=jpg&name=large
Wings delivered last August, where is the 777-8F today?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GyNHeRzacAAX0cq?format=jpg&name=large
Interestingly, Planespotters doesn’t say what engines are mounted on this first -600.
Which is curious, because engine data for undelivered C919-100s *is* specified.
COMAC indicated recently that the -600 would have “more powerful engines”.
I’m wondering if these are CJ-1000As in the photo…
Now there is a statement.
“Good and Safe”
Wow. Not even the FAA in its worst day would have used that as a basis of anything let alone certification.
Airbus 3 systems approach is good and safe, except when your Pitots all Freeze up and or your AOA vanes.
Bottom line, I will believe it when I see it get to stage 1 of approved flight tests. They will never get to stage 1 because they can’t explane how they got there, and they have to document AND explane how they got there. Its the process.
Some will believe you wave the magic want of Good and Safe. Its not true.
No need to believe anything. The world is changing: when countries around the world, including the Saudi, are lining up for fighter jets that are tested and proven in recent combat last May, and entrusting their national security to them, what doubt could they still have about another proven aircraft?
Potential buyers don’t just look at the product itself — they also consider where the product is coming from, and under what terms and conditions it is being supplied.
For a LOT of potential buyers, China ticks the boxes more favorably than certain legacy names.
For other potential buyers, Europe, South Korea, Japan and Turkey are becoming increasingly interesting as suppliers.
Gary Marcus on the massive problems facing “AI” and LLM
scaling, with Steve Eisman (56 min):
https://cinemaphile.com/watch?v=aI7XknJJC5Q
Continuing the recent trend of India beefing up its aerospace industry:
“India Rafale Jets News: India’s Defence Procurement Board has approved the purchase of 114 more Rafale fighter jets.”
“Under the plan, the bulk of the aircraft will be manufactured in India, with indigenous components accounting for roughly 30% of the overall content, giving a push to domestic defence manufacturing.”
“Meanwhile, according to an ET report, parallel projects, including an engine production facility in Hyderabad and a maintenance, repair and overhaul hub in Jewar, Uttar Pradesh, could eventually bring up to 60% of Rafale projects.”
https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/defence-procurement-board-clears-114-rafale-jets-in-largest-ever-deal/articleshow/126580893.cms
” GE 2026 Outlook: From LEAP Momentum to 777X Certification and the Rise of RISE”
Just a heads up that the article does not have Subscription only attached to the lead. I expected it, had some interesting aspects as they usually do, sigh.
Ok, there is a sentence wihting what we can see that says, High Risk, High Reward.
That is flawed. If its high risk, the outcomes then at least Bifurcates after the High Risk (and possibly into more than two patch outcomes”
The outcomes are,
1. Failure
2. Success
3. Split in between.
You could say High Risk and Possible High Reward. By itself High Risk means usually failure.
TTBW would also be a High Risk and High Possible Failure.
RISE has two and I beleive more accurately 3 issues.
1. The tech working
2. The public acceptance
3. Airlines gambling on 1 and 2.
Boeing went High Risk on the 787. First was the tech and actually two techs, major composite build and the almost all electric. I think Boeing has sufficient background to have actually made it lower risk.
The other is actually two interrelated aspects.
1. Management – of lack of it, all we have to do is dump this on someone else and it works fine.
2. Risk sharing all over the world without a management structure in place that addresses the added issues (no free lunch) and no one under a common umbrella.
Doing two Higher Risk and the High Risk ended in a debacle. Sales wise its a success, I leave to others if they ever pay for the depth the program went into debt.
Yes I have said I think it can recovers as over time the number of builds is higher than anyone ever expected and is not slowing down. We could be looking at 3500 ultimate aircraft and possibly more with a NEO. But that is an possible avenue, I don’t know if the accounting works.
Being a simple type financially, I go with, you borrowed 50 billion, you have to assess it on the basis of what kind of money would I get with a 7% return and does the program return 7% over time. I don’t get into write offs and the impacts as I am a simple person, I incur debt, I have to pay it off (or get thrown in the Hooskow though at this age they probably don’t want me).
Somewhat out of the ordinary, but tangentially aviation-related.
As readers may know, there was a very powerful solar storm earlier this week, which caused vivid aurorae — even at relatively southerly latitudes.
This pilot captured some *stunning* photos of the display:
“‘The most incredible display of aurora I’ve ever seen in my 20 years of flying’. Pilot captures historic northern lights show from 37,000 feet (photos)”
https://www.space.com/stargazing/auroras/the-most-incredible-display-of-aurora-ive-ever-seen-in-my-20-years-of-flying-pilot-captures-historic-northern-lights-show-from-37-000-feet-photos
You may not be able to read it but this is what I had been offering up. It should be mandatory but…..
https://www.flightglobal.com/systems-and-interiors/faa-explores-wireless-industry-subsidies-for-radio-altimeter-upgrades/166005.article