VERY speculative. To the point that even attempting to put a number on it is a bit facile. A truly honest assessment should realistically read "Rest of the World: we don't have a freaking clue?"
With uncertainty of that magnitude inherent in the production estimates, deriving the profit shares from it to split the project between the two partners is rather disingenuous. I'd resolutely object to that method too - find me a criterion that you can actually rely on for making a decision of this kind of importance!
Thing is, we don't need to look at big public projects the world over, most of which have at best a tenuous relevance as precedents for the CR929. Why try to gain insights on a civilian aerospace programme underwritten by the Chinese government from hydroelectic dams in Brazil or rail links in Switzerland? We already have a much more specific and pertinent example to refer to: the ARJ21, another civilian aerospace programme underwritten by the Chinese government.
"Somewhat"? In most other countries, the ARJ21 met the definition of a project that "didn't take off" several times over and would in all probability never even have made it as far as first flight. Yet China pressed on, indicating that civilian aerospace is such a high priority that no obstacle is too great.
While perhaps not outright zero, based on this precedent the risk of the CR929 being allowed to fail is so minuscule as to be not worth considering.
If the Russian home market was the same size as China's you might have a point, but it isn't. From Russian domestic airlines alone you can't get enough volume to make a profit. Apples and oranges.
It's not like the Russians have never built the rest of an airliner (including widebodies) before. In fact, to keep their hand in they are (nonsensically in my opinion) running a minor update of the Il-96 in parallel. A ripe target for cancellation and replacement with a clean-sheet, fully-Russian design if the CR929 falls apart.
It's an obscure fact, but Russia has even done considerable work on CFRP fuselages, to the extent of manufacturing a demonstrator fuselage section for the Il-114 turboprop in the 1990s. Unlike the CR929 which uses the Airbus panel approach this was a wound barrel like the 787, but with integrated geodesic stiffening structure. Both philosophies perform about equally, panels allow you to locally vary skin thickness while winding saves you a lot of fasteners. The Russian solution could have saved even more fasteners than the Boeing approach though, so it's an interesting wildcard.
I did not say there would be no benefit, but the difference is substantial. For example, final assembly (if there is a separate Russian line) would in fact see no benefit whatsoever.
You mean everybody just builds their part of the plane and all final assembly lines deliver to all markets based on availability? That's very similar to the way Airbus was organized and it is a successful and fair model. Each partner participates equally in the project's fortunes and the risk is shared evenly. If sales are 20% above prediction, production volumes go up 20% for everyone, if they are 50% below, volumes drop 50% for everyone.
It's the antithesis of the proposed deal where Russia carries a disproportionate part of the risk from uncertainty and market volatility*.
See above - there is a non-trivial chance that international sales will not materialize so the Russians can't just ignore that contingency their planning.
* Volatility is another aspect where a captive market works greatly in your favour that we hadn't even mentioned yet. While Airbus and Boeing ground to a halt under CoViD-19, COMAC kept delivering ARJ21s more or less according to schedule. If you believe that is because the ARJ21 is such a superb little plane, I have a bridge in to sell you.
Wow. I'm not sure where to start, so many points you made. Some good, some bad, and some irrelevant.
All I'm saying is that any project have risks. Some more than others. These risks has to be accounted for. At the moment, it is the Chinese that has to carry this risk, however small.
With regards to economy of scales. You have got it all wrong. I never suggested Airbus style sharing of work. I was answering your assertion that it wasn't fair to Russia as they won't gain from the economy of scale because their production is smaller. All I'm suggesting is both nations doesn't have to make the same parts. For example, Russia could make wings for both partners. Economy of scale is maintained.
And yes it is unfair to Russia to rely on just the Russian and international markets. As the Chinese markets is predicted to be bigger than both.
I've never claimed it was unfair. But what I said was it might be fair if one was a junior partner. Which looks like it is shaping it up to be.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think Russia should be an equal partner? If so, what equal cost they are sharing, and what equal benefits they are sharing? If they are sharing costs and benefits equally, then it is only fair they are equal partners. But I don't think this us the case, unless you can tell us differently.
Now regarding that bridge you got to sell? Can I forgo that opportunity this time if you don't mind. I've seen too many get burned in my life time.
