By: Sens
- 23rd January 2013 at 19:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't buy that for one second - that figure must exclude one or more significant items that on the other hand are included in the Su-30 price, such as development cost or production plant re-tooling. The Su-34 took *much* longer to develop, will likely never achieve a comparable production run, *no* funding was provided by foreign customers, it features *far* deeper structural changes compared to the basic Su-27, is noticeably larger physically and required an upgrade to the manufacturing plant for series production. It just isn't going to be cheaper on a like-for-like basis.
Would you believe somebody who told you the F-15SA was cheaper than the F/A-18E (even allowing for carrier capability and that in this case it's the SH that is further removed from the basic airframe)?
The main share of development cost for the Su-32/34 was payed by the Russian taxpayer in SU times. After the restart none demanded a refund of that cost from future sellings. All Russian military producers do not work under the rules of a free economy really. "Moscow" decides which one will be closed down or kept open. Political intrests overrule the economical ones every time. Selling high value items not to a realistic price harms the own economy in the long run. :cool:
By: paralay
- 23rd January 2013 at 19:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Would you believe somebody who told you the F-15SA was cheaper than the F/A-18E (even allowing for carrier capability and that in this case it's the SH that is further removed from the basic airframe)?
I agree. I do not understand why the Su-30MKI is 31,000 rubles per kilogram, and the Su-34 - 25 000 rubles per kilogram, although they were made in one country, one and the same firm at the same time.
Nevertheless, this is a fact.
New
By: Anonymous
- 23rd January 2013 at 19:55Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Nevertheless, this is a fact.
I don't doubt that a 37 million price tag for the Su-34 can be calculated without "lying" - it's just that there is no way the Su-30 will be more expensive when judged according to the same benchmark. Similarly, if you use the same methods on the Su-34 that give a 40 million price for the Su-30, the result is not going to be 37 million.
By: Jō Asakura
- 23rd January 2013 at 20:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-30 "Super Flanker" for India $ 92.5 million apiece.
The number you're quoting ($4bn/42) is wrong because it's inclusive of 71 Mi-17 V5 helos ordered as part of the deal signed by VladP. In New Delhi last month.
Unit cost for Su-30MKIs are notoriously difficult to come by. Bloomberg, Vedomosti, RIA, BBC etc. have underestimated the cost @ around $35m. This is patently false because the first Su-30MKM contract was ~$900m (for 18 aircraft equates to a unit cost of $50m).
DID claims the contract signed last month is for 42 'Super-30's coming in @ $71.5m each (a more realistic figure), even though the report itself is littered with errors. HAL is understandably coy on the subject.
By: haavarla
- 23rd January 2013 at 20:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, it s is very interesting to know. I dying to find out really. Both Su-34, Su-30SM and Su-35S.
Those new Su-27SM3 should by all account be dirt cheap at least. And the Su-34.. It has passed State Trials.
It has entered long term serial production. All the Development cost has been dealt with over all these years.
But how much have the Su-34 development program cost both SU and Russia? Its not a very large or demanding program. It can't be compaired with other program such as EF, Rafale or F-22/F-35.
New
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut
- 23rd January 2013 at 21:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: Lonevolk
- 23rd January 2013 at 22:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
All Russian military producers do not work under the rules of a free economy really.
And your companies work under the rules of a "free" economy?? :D
Who exactly are you kidding. I trade futures part time and take my word for it, the official economic statistics of western economies are not worth the paper they're written on. It's all smoke and mirrors and basically one giant ponzi scheme. Try trading using rational economic principles and figures and see how far you get...you'll be broke within a month.
Russia has a pretty good macro-economic environment and great potential if they play their cards right.
....
The Su-34 and the Su-30 are essentially different class of aircraft despite their common origins. The closest western equivalent to the Su-34 was the F-111 not the F-15 or Eurofighter
New
Posts: 306
By: J-31 Burrito
- 23rd January 2013 at 23:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And your companies work under the rules of a "free" economy?? :D
Who exactly are you kidding. I trade futures part time and take my word for it, the official economic statistics of western economies are not worth the paper they're written on. It's all smoke and mirrors and basically one giant ponzi scheme. Try trading using rational economic principles and figures and see how far you get...you'll be broke within a month.
Russia has a pretty good macro-economic environment and great potential if they play their cards right.
....
The Su-34 and the Su-30 are essentially different class of aircraft despite their common origins. The closest western equivalent to the Su-34 was the F-111 not the F-15 or Eurofighter
yeah and they retired the F-111 because it was a one trick pony. its too expensive to maintain dedicated aircraft in this day an age when multi-roles can cover MOST (not all) of the jobs.
By: Sens
- 23rd January 2013 at 23:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The present Su-34 is the Russian "testbed" to introduce some fusion-work of the weapon-system similar the "Eurocanards" for A2G work and the related procedures. The related creation of software takes time, when the hardware is much less an issue. The Su-34 will be a very effective striker but a very expensive one as well similar the "Eurocanards". We will find many of the systems of the Su-34 in the Su-35S and PAKFA as well. In present Russia we will never learn something about the real cost of that program in total and the benefits from that for the other two named programs. Just optimistic claims in former Pravda-style. If I am wrong what does the opposition press in Russia claim about that very program?! ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34
...the total for 2015 to 2020 is shrinking over the years. Is the cut in numbers due to the rising share of development costs like in the West. Our better informed Russian friends can give us the details?! ;)
By: haavarla
- 24th January 2013 at 00:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you trolling?
The Su-34 program did not recieve funding for years during late 90's you smuch.. but i guess you allready knew this.. but can't help your self..:rolleyes:
Thats why the Su-34 program took forever, not because of its complexity or size.
New
Posts: 306
By: J-31 Burrito
- 24th January 2013 at 02:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Su-34 program did not recieve funding for years during late 90's you smuch.. but i guess you allready knew this.. but can't help your self..:rolleyes:
Thats why the Su-34 program took forever, not because of its complexity or size.
harvey dent, no need to name call our local golden eagle.
and yes, its lack of funding and long development period for a relatively single purpose design makes it an expensive collection to maintain.
at least during the chaos thatis the 90s, the Su-30 line still saw relevent upgrades and the Russians shouldve piggy backed on the IAF order。well they are doing that now..but shouldve done that 10 years ago
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 24th January 2013 at 03:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And your companies work under the rules of a "free" economy?? :D
Indeed. Laissez-faire capitalism has a very limited role to play in military matters and other items of strategic significance. The Americans are particularly deluded about this as their domestic market is generally large enough to afford a degree of market operation, yet even there when push comes to shove -- e.g. submarine construction -- the free market goes out the window, which is as it should be.
By: TR1
- 24th January 2013 at 03:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
harvey dent, no need to name call our local golden eagle.
and yes, its lack of funding and long development period for a relatively single purpose design makes it an expensive collection to maintain.
at least during the chaos thatis the 90s, the Su-30 line still saw relevent upgrades and the Russians shouldve piggy backed on the IAF order。well they are doing that now..but shouldve done that 10 years ago
Who was going to pay for it 10 years ago?
It is like some of you guys live in utter denial of the economic situation and the armed force funding at the time.
Anyways even if Su-30 was ordered in bulk, NAPO would still have to be re-tooled for its production (or Su-35s), as Irkut was busy with export orders at the time (as well as for reasons of giving NAPO work and ensuring its existance). Su-34 did end up costing more for the RuAF out of the pocket, but it wanted (and still wants) a more specialized strike aircraft. At the end of the day that is what matters, and more and more Hellducks confirm this.
I, for one, am enjoying good numbers of Flankers being delivered to the RuAF; no point in dwelling on supposed missed opportunities that ignore the realities of the time.
By: paralay
- 24th January 2013 at 04:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Su-35 for China, $ 4 billion, 48 fighters - $ 83.3 million apiece. In another contract - $ 62.5 million apiece.
Modernization of the Su-27 - Su-27SM - 198 million rubles. / $ 6.6 million
By: Austin
- 24th January 2013 at 04:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The price difference between RuAF and Export customers is likely due to addtional cost like Training , Spares , Support and Fat Profit that Sukhoi makes via exports :D
Even in internal sale Sukhoi makes a profit of ~ 10 % is what i read. The mandate by Government is not to make profit over 15 % when selling to Russian Armed Forces
By: Lonevolk
- 24th January 2013 at 05:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
no point in dwelling on supposed missed opportunities that ignore the realities of the time.
Spot on.
The Su-35 for China
The Su-35 for China controversy isn't going away. There is a new report out about ongoing negotiations. Apparently a MOU has been signed and both sides are working on a firm contract. The number mentioned is at least 40 x Su-35's
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 24th January 2013 at 06:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well Li Na just beat Maria Sharapova to reach final of Australian Open, now China can buy Su-35 without loss of face. :p
PS: Any news of when the Su-35S's from KnAAPO will be transferred to Akhtubinsk? ( i suspect those that are already there -3 or 4?- count against the 6)
New
By: Anonymous
- 24th January 2013 at 19:28Permalink- Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
Who was going to pay for it 10 years ago?
It is like some of you guys live in utter denial of the economic situation and the armed force funding at the time.
The same resources which ensured that the Su-34 was able to survive that era maybe? Also, no need to stubbornly cling to an order that far back - the same logic works equally well (earlier and cheaper aircraft for the VVS) with delivery 5 years ago.
Anyways even if Su-30 was ordered in bulk, NAPO would still have to be re-tooled for its production (or Su-35s), as Irkut was busy with export orders at the time (as well as for reasons of giving NAPO work and ensuring its existance).
Not sure - other than India numbers ordered weren't that high, and needless to say HAL got its own final assembly line eventually. That they still prefer to place at least part of their orders with Irkut is of course because Indian production turned out to be more expensive than anticipated, but if a large-scale VVS order had materialised, that would have been their problem.
I, for one, am enjoying good numbers of Flankers being delivered to the RuAF; no point in dwelling on supposed missed opportunities that ignore the realities of the time.
Me too - I'd almost be sorry to see the Hellducks go if it wasn't for that obnoxious paint scheme ;)
By: haavarla
- 24th January 2013 at 22:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
About NAPO. They have other production orders besides the Su-34.
Russian Aviation prospect will only gain from re-tooling NAPO.
After the HellDucks orders are through, they will shift their production to other products, thus keeping the workforce and their skills.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 23rd January 2013 at 19:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The main share of development cost for the Su-32/34 was payed by the Russian taxpayer in SU times. After the restart none demanded a refund of that cost from future sellings. All Russian military producers do not work under the rules of a free economy really. "Moscow" decides which one will be closed down or kept open. Political intrests overrule the economical ones every time. Selling high value items not to a realistic price harms the own economy in the long run. :cool:
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 23rd January 2013 at 19:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree. I do not understand why the Su-30MKI is 31,000 rubles per kilogram, and the Su-34 - 25 000 rubles per kilogram, although they were made in one country, one and the same firm at the same time.
Nevertheless, this is a fact.
By: Anonymous - 23rd January 2013 at 19:55 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
I don't doubt that a 37 million price tag for the Su-34 can be calculated without "lying" - it's just that there is no way the Su-30 will be more expensive when judged according to the same benchmark. Similarly, if you use the same methods on the Su-34 that give a 40 million price for the Su-30, the result is not going to be 37 million.
Posts: 1,286
By: Jō Asakura - 23rd January 2013 at 20:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The number you're quoting ($4bn/42) is wrong because it's inclusive of 71 Mi-17 V5 helos ordered as part of the deal signed by VladP. In New Delhi last month.
Unit cost for Su-30MKIs are notoriously difficult to come by. Bloomberg, Vedomosti, RIA, BBC etc. have underestimated the cost @ around $35m. This is patently false because the first Su-30MKM contract was ~$900m (for 18 aircraft equates to a unit cost of $50m).
DID claims the contract signed last month is for 42 'Super-30's coming in @ $71.5m each (a more realistic figure), even though the report itself is littered with errors. HAL is understandably coy on the subject.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/india-ordering-modernizing-su-30mkis-05852/
http://hal-india.com/SU-30_MKI_Contract_24-12-12.asp
We may have to wait for Parliamentary minutes post Finance Ministry submission for the true figures to emerge, if they release them to the public.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 23rd January 2013 at 20:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, it s is very interesting to know. I dying to find out really. Both Su-34, Su-30SM and Su-35S.
Those new Su-27SM3 should by all account be dirt cheap at least. And the Su-34.. It has passed State Trials.
It has entered long term serial production. All the Development cost has been dealt with over all these years.
But how much have the Su-34 development program cost both SU and Russia? Its not a very large or demanding program. It can't be compaired with other program such as EF, Rafale or F-22/F-35.
Posts: 2,171
By: Berkut - 23rd January 2013 at 21:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you trolling?
Posts: 690
By: Lonevolk - 23rd January 2013 at 22:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And your companies work under the rules of a "free" economy?? :D
Who exactly are you kidding. I trade futures part time and take my word for it, the official economic statistics of western economies are not worth the paper they're written on. It's all smoke and mirrors and basically one giant ponzi scheme. Try trading using rational economic principles and figures and see how far you get...you'll be broke within a month.
Russia has a pretty good macro-economic environment and great potential if they play their cards right.
....
The Su-34 and the Su-30 are essentially different class of aircraft despite their common origins. The closest western equivalent to the Su-34 was the F-111 not the F-15 or Eurofighter
Posts: 306
By: J-31 Burrito - 23rd January 2013 at 23:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yeah and they retired the F-111 because it was a one trick pony. its too expensive to maintain dedicated aircraft in this day an age when multi-roles can cover MOST (not all) of the jobs.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 23rd January 2013 at 23:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The present Su-34 is the Russian "testbed" to introduce some fusion-work of the weapon-system similar the "Eurocanards" for A2G work and the related procedures. The related creation of software takes time, when the hardware is much less an issue. The Su-34 will be a very effective striker but a very expensive one as well similar the "Eurocanards". We will find many of the systems of the Su-34 in the Su-35S and PAKFA as well. In present Russia we will never learn something about the real cost of that program in total and the benefits from that for the other two named programs. Just optimistic claims in former Pravda-style. If I am wrong what does the opposition press in Russia claim about that very program?! ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34
...the total for 2015 to 2020 is shrinking over the years. Is the cut in numbers due to the rising share of development costs like in the West. Our better informed Russian friends can give us the details?! ;)
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 24th January 2013 at 00:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Su-34 program did not recieve funding for years during late 90's you smuch.. but i guess you allready knew this.. but can't help your self..:rolleyes:
Thats why the Su-34 program took forever, not because of its complexity or size.
Posts: 306
By: J-31 Burrito - 24th January 2013 at 02:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
harvey dent, no need to name call our local golden eagle.
and yes, its lack of funding and long development period for a relatively single purpose design makes it an expensive collection to maintain.
at least during the chaos thatis the 90s, the Su-30 line still saw relevent upgrades and the Russians shouldve piggy backed on the IAF order。well they are doing that now..but shouldve done that 10 years ago
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 24th January 2013 at 03:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed. Laissez-faire capitalism has a very limited role to play in military matters and other items of strategic significance. The Americans are particularly deluded about this as their domestic market is generally large enough to afford a degree of market operation, yet even there when push comes to shove -- e.g. submarine construction -- the free market goes out the window, which is as it should be.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 24th January 2013 at 03:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Who was going to pay for it 10 years ago?
It is like some of you guys live in utter denial of the economic situation and the armed force funding at the time.
Anyways even if Su-30 was ordered in bulk, NAPO would still have to be re-tooled for its production (or Su-35s), as Irkut was busy with export orders at the time (as well as for reasons of giving NAPO work and ensuring its existance). Su-34 did end up costing more for the RuAF out of the pocket, but it wanted (and still wants) a more specialized strike aircraft. At the end of the day that is what matters, and more and more Hellducks confirm this.
I, for one, am enjoying good numbers of Flankers being delivered to the RuAF; no point in dwelling on supposed missed opportunities that ignore the realities of the time.
Posts: 1,344
By: paralay - 24th January 2013 at 04:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Su-35 for China, $ 4 billion, 48 fighters - $ 83.3 million apiece. In another contract - $ 62.5 million apiece.
Modernization of the Su-27 - Su-27SM - 198 million rubles. / $ 6.6 million
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 24th January 2013 at 04:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The price difference between RuAF and Export customers is likely due to addtional cost like Training , Spares , Support and Fat Profit that Sukhoi makes via exports :D
Even in internal sale Sukhoi makes a profit of ~ 10 % is what i read. The mandate by Government is not to make profit over 15 % when selling to Russian Armed Forces
Posts: 690
By: Lonevolk - 24th January 2013 at 05:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Spot on.
The Su-35 for China controversy isn't going away. There is a new report out about ongoing negotiations. Apparently a MOU has been signed and both sides are working on a firm contract. The number mentioned is at least 40 x Su-35's
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 24th January 2013 at 06:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well Li Na just beat Maria Sharapova to reach final of Australian Open, now China can buy Su-35 without loss of face. :p
Posts: 2,114
By: mack8 - 24th January 2013 at 15:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
5 Su-34 to be delivered to Voronezh on the 25th (tomorrow):
http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2013/01/24/247722.html
PS: Any news of when the Su-35S's from KnAAPO will be transferred to Akhtubinsk? ( i suspect those that are already there -3 or 4?- count against the 6)
By: Anonymous - 24th January 2013 at 19:28 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:31
The same resources which ensured that the Su-34 was able to survive that era maybe? Also, no need to stubbornly cling to an order that far back - the same logic works equally well (earlier and cheaper aircraft for the VVS) with delivery 5 years ago.
Not sure - other than India numbers ordered weren't that high, and needless to say HAL got its own final assembly line eventually. That they still prefer to place at least part of their orders with Irkut is of course because Indian production turned out to be more expensive than anticipated, but if a large-scale VVS order had materialised, that would have been their problem.
Me too - I'd almost be sorry to see the Hellducks go if it wasn't for that obnoxious paint scheme ;)
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 24th January 2013 at 22:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
About NAPO. They have other production orders besides the Su-34.
Russian Aviation prospect will only gain from re-tooling NAPO.
After the HellDucks orders are through, they will shift their production to other products, thus keeping the workforce and their skills.
A win win situation if you ask me..