By: JSR
- 3rd January 2017 at 06:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is not an explanation.. and BTW, I surely would not buy a Russian car, even if it was sold for 1/3rd the price of an BMW..
..
BMW are for rent not buy. they cant do rough and tough performance and certainly very expensive maintaince. that's why all this Middleast only Russian or Japanese light weight vehicles in war zone.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 3rd January 2017 at 11:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BMW are for rent not buy. they cant do rough and tough performance and certainly very expensive maintaince. that's why all this Middleast only Russian or Japanese light weight vehicles in war zone.
That's nice but I am not living in a war zone..
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 3rd January 2017 at 12:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And you think parts aren't machined in Russia? Or that Su-30s built in Russia don't use Russian parts? Do you really think you are making an argument here?
Yes, I am making an argument here.. I have explained the price difference to you..
- the deal is $75 mil a piece, but India will be left with a huge amount of left-over titanium and other raw materials which they can resell or recycle.. (or dump)
- the deal was closed in 2014 RUB/USD exchange rate. In today's terms it would be only ~$41 mil and in Feb 2016 prices even less, only ~$32 mil
If you still think it's not enough for you to grasp it, you can dig deeper by yourself, I've provided you plenty of hints, you know where to start..
I don't have the details on that, but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing an impossible number. In all likelihood different accounting methods are being used for costs/payments between government entities, similar to the "government furnished equipment" in aircraft like the F-35. It may be accurate on some level to say that a contract was signed and that the amount is XXX... but that contract may not represent the full cost of actually building a complete aircraft.
That's the problem.. you don't have any details on that, but you're still playing smarta$$.. These cost do represent the price to build a complete aircraft, incl. propulsion.. In the case of Su-30SM or Su-30MKI even the cost of foreign equipment like Thales/Samtel displays, Thales or El-Op HUD, etc.
:rolleyes: No doubt you are quite the connoisseur of cars...
It depends.. I have five, four are German (as long as you count Cooper S as a BMW product) and one is US-made. ;)
By: APRichelieu
- 3rd January 2017 at 13:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Gripen order for Brazil includes a lot of extras.
The cost of Gripen E for the Swedish Air Force is estimated to 35,6 B SEK for 60 planes.
The dollar rate is 9,18 which would give 65 M$ per plane.
The dollar rate was probably a little bit lower when the estimation was done, so real figure would be higher.
Price is probably based on cannibalizing Gripen C for some components, again making price higher for completely new planes.
By: FBW
- 3rd January 2017 at 13:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Gripen order for Brazil includes a lot of extras.
\.
???? Name a recent contract that does not include a lot of "extras".
Look at the Swedish contract for the Gripen E, they aren't 72 million. I forget the figure, but it was in the high 80's, low 90's.
The original contract between Saab and FMV was SEK 47.2 billion for the development and modification of Gripen C into E ( 85.8 million dollars per aircraft in today's exchange rate, but contract was 2013). Since then, the Swiss dropped out and Sweden is getting new build aircraft.
By: Vnomad
- 3rd January 2017 at 17:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, I am making an argument here.. I have explained the price difference to you..
- the deal is $75 mil a piece, but India will be left with a huge amount of left-over titanium and other raw materials which they can resell or recycle.. (or dump)
Except that having a heap of waste titanium is a pretty normal state of affairs for any such production for aviation products anywhere in the world. And the huge amount isn't really a huge amount (in monetary terms).
Its the process of machining titanium that is an energy intensive and expensive venture. The metal itself isn't that expensive (and what's left over is probably sold off as scrap).
That's the problem.. you don't have any details on that, but you're still playing smarta$$.. These cost do represent the price to build a complete aircraft, incl. propulsion.. In the case of Su-30SM or Su-30MKI even the cost of foreign equipment like Thales/Samtel displays, Thales or El-Op HUD, etc.
The press releases from the Russian MoD/OEM do not say what's included and what's not. Engines for one were contracted separately by India (follow-on).
In the largest single contract with an international customer since the demise of the Soviet Union
The 10-year contract with India to ship AL-31FP engines was signed in October 2012. The first batch of ten engine sets will be shipped before the end of 1Q 2013.
India acquired the right (the option) to buy additionally these 920 AL-31FP engine sets in stages back in 2000, under the terms of a general contract for setting up production of Sukhoi Su-30MKI jets and AL-31FP engines under license.
The Ufa Engine Engineering Company OJSC is a major Russian manufacturer of aircraft engines, and part of the United Engine Engineering Corporation (a specialized subsidiary managing engine-making assets 100%-owned by Oboronprom). The company generated RUB 20,562 million in 2011 sales. The company is primarily involved in manufacture, servicing, and repairs of aircraft jet engines and gas pumps, manufacture and repairs of helicopter components and assemblies.
What is and isn't included in the domestic contracts for the OEM still remains an unknown factor.
By: TR1
- 3rd January 2017 at 20:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Engines are part of the contract when Russian MOD orders domestic planes.
Usually MOD makes a contract with "Russian Helicopters", or UAC, or Sukhoi, who then posts its own engine contracts.
MOD generally does not individually contract out engines unless it is a re-engine scheme within its own ARZ (avia-repair-factories).
We can safely discount weapons (MOD buys them sepretly, from say Tactical Missile Corps), there are no long term support packages obviously....but the price is for the bird and all integrated systems.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 3rd January 2017 at 21:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
???? Name a recent contract that does not include a lot of "extras".
Brazilian deal is about very special extras, like a production line for another 100+ fighters, incl. re-export rights.
Name a recent contract which includes that..
By: Yama
- 3rd January 2017 at 23:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just so we are clear, you are saying that India is not producing Su-30MKIs at roughly $75 million apiece?
I am well aware of the extremely low prices quoted in the media for Russian fighters, but as I already explained, these numbers do not represent apples to apples comparisons with Western designs.
It's true Su-30 sales have been often reported for very low prices:
-Malaysia 18 Su-30MKM's (and two Malaysian cosmonauts for ISS) for $900M, 50 million USD per plane in 2003. Configuration is very similar to MKI, ie. top-end.
-Algeria, latest order was 14 aircraft reportedly for $500M, 36 million each, but this price estimate might have been guess by journalists.
-Venezuela, latest order (2015) is 12 Su-30's for $480M, 40 million per plane. I don't know avionics etc. configuration of Venezuelan planes.
-Vietnam, 2013 order of 12 planes was reportedly for $450M, $37,5million per plane. However this order has been also reported as $600 million (50 million per plane).
-Uganda's 2011 order of six aircraft was for $740 million - 123 million per aircraft!
This news article examines Vietnamese deals, and mentions that 8 Su-30's were $400M "without weapons" in 2009, next 12 "with weapons and spares" were $1 billion (83 million per plane) and next 12 were $600 million. Seems to me that some of the quoted very low prices for Su-30 deals cover only part of the deal, maybe only the initial batch, also they apparently often include only the planes themselves, not any accompanying spares etc (note the analoguous controversy about F-35 vs Super Hornet pricing in Danish evaluation). Also, Su-30 is available in variety of configurations, not all of which feature thrust vectoring engines and state-of-the-art avionic sets. I also wonder if some extraordinaly low prices were actually refurbished Su-27UB's which were given Su-30 type avionics sets and weapon wirings.
Ugandan deal probably is the most comparable "all inclusive" deal similar to what Western manufacturers offer to 3rd world countries: weapons, spares, simulators, training, support etc. If so, $123 million apiece is still reasonably cheap, but not "omg I'll buy a hundred" cheap.
By: APRichelieu
- 3rd January 2017 at 23:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
???? Name a recent contract that does not include a lot of "extras".
Look at the Swedish contract for the Gripen E, they aren't 72 million. I forget the figure, but it was in the high 80's, low 90's.
The original contract between Saab and FMV was SEK 47.2 billion for the development and modification of Gripen C into E ( 85.8 million dollars per aircraft in today's exchange rate, but contract was 2013). Since then, the Swiss dropped out and Sweden is getting new build aircraft.
The figure published by SAAB at the Gripen E rollout in May 2016 was 35,6 billion SEK for 60 aircrafts,
which is $65M at a 9,18 exchange rate.
The quote for Denmark was 22B Dkr for 48 aircrafts or $64M per aircraft (580 MSek), including spares.
It's believeable. The above figure I gave included development cost for Swedish contract. The Danish one I am curious on:
That would essentially mean that Saab is not rolling dev costs into the package offered to Denmark, or the quote is a "flyaway" cost.
I also noticed that FMV has signed separate contracts for HMD, skyward IRST, Raven AESA. This may be similar to the flyaway of the Super Hornet that does not include government furnished equipment (like radar).
By: hopsalot
- 4th January 2017 at 00:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ugandan deal probably is the most comparable "all inclusive" deal similar to what Western manufacturers offer to 3rd world countries: weapons, spares, simulators, training, support etc. If so, $123 million apiece is still reasonably cheap, but not "omg I'll buy a hundred" cheap.
I could certainly believe $123 million each, and even less than that. I don't doubt that Russian fighters are cheaper than the Western competitors, they would have to be given Russia's predominantly 3rd-world customer base. What they aren't is one half or one third the cost of the cheapest Western fighters.
Nobody can build a modern fighter for less than half the cost of an F-16 or Gripen, and if somebody could it wouldn't be Russia. (and it wouldn't be a heavy-weight twin engined design)
A little commons sense should tell people that, but then common sense isn't evenly distributed it seems...
By: JSR
- 4th January 2017 at 00:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's nice but I am not living in a war zone..
It does not matter. SUVs like Landcruiser and Gaz Tigr has very high RTI index so the suspension don't get deformed over curbs and potholes that enable it long life tires plus high resale. Germanic vehicles will bankrupt a country. Not even Middleastern Police is using them in mass quantities as they not reliable.. Than add Ambulance and cargo truckd based on Germanic tech. Let see how many Germanic vehicles and tanks Turkey use in syria. They are lucky that SAA and Ruaf is not blasting them. Lufthansa Technik and Turkish Technic are carbon copy.
By: JSR
- 4th January 2017 at 00:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I could certainly believe $123 million each, and even less than that. I don't doubt that Russian fighters are cheaper than the Western competitors, they would have to be given Russia's predominantly 3rd-world customer base. What they aren't is one half or one third the cost of the cheapest Western fighters.
Nobody can build a modern fighter for less than half the cost of an F-16 or Gripen, and if somebody could it wouldn't be Russia. (and it wouldn't be a heavy-weight twin engined design)
A little commons sense should tell people that, but then common sense isn't evenly distributed it seems...
Ruaf is adding 6 times more fighter per year than IAF and they are far modern and diverse in capabilities. It's understandable that F16 will be several times more expensive than Su-30SM as Su30SM is majority built in Siberia where there is no population, turnover and cost pressure like Texas.
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 4th January 2017 at 00:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, believing those numbers would require a level of suspension of disbelief similar to that required for an action movie...
Russia is wholly uncompetitive as a manufacturer and while the collapse of the Ruble helps some it isn't going to come close to allowing them to sell a heavy weight twin engined fighter for less than half the cost of an F-16 or Gripen. Seriously, use your head for once.
If Russia were able to achieve such results in a high-tech industry they are wasting their time building fighter jets.
Edit:
For example India, hardly a high-cost producer, is building the latest order of Su-30MKIs at ~$75 million per unit. Do you honestly think Russia can produce an Su-35 for less than a third of the cost of what India can produce an Su-30MKI for? Think...
Russia's military industry is thriving.
and its always funny to see people scoff about Russia being low tech while they are the only ones capable of bringing man into space.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 4th January 2017 at 00:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russia's military industry is thriving.
and its always funny to see people scoff about Russia being low tech while they are the only ones capable of bringing man into space.
ever looked at a Chinese rocket ? Its a lot like looking at Chinese aircraft carriers. Even those space suits in that picture..
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 4th January 2017 at 01:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Venezuela, latest order (2015) is 12 Su-30's for $480M, 40 million per plane. I don't know avionics etc. configuration of Venezuelan planes.
They're classic Su-30MK2, just like Vietnam, Uganda or Chinese Navy use.
This news article examines Vietnamese deals, and mentions that 8 Su-30's were $400M "without weapons" in 2009, next 12 "with weapons and spares" were $1 billion (83 million per plane) and next 12 were $600 million. Seems to me that some of the quoted very low prices for Su-30 deals cover only part of the deal, maybe only the initial batch, also they apparently often include only the planes themselves, not any accompanying spares etc (note the analoguous controversy about F-35 vs Super Hornet pricing in Danish evaluation). Also, Su-30 is available in variety of configurations, not all of which feature thrust vectoring engines and state-of-the-art avionic sets. I also wonder if some extraordinaly low prices were actually refurbished Su-27UB's which were given Su-30 type avionics sets and weapon wirings.
No, there is no variety of configurations. There are just two.. KnAAZ-built Su-30MK2 (discontinued recently) and IAZ-built Su-30MKI, incl. russianized mod called Su-30SM. There is nothing else..
And you can't modify an Su-27UB into an Su-30 as they are structurally different, don't make things up.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 4th January 2017 at 01:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I could certainly believe $123 million each, and even less than that.
This has two reasons.. 1. very small batch.. 2. Ugandan deal is similar to the Middle East deals - incl. complete support and long-term on-spot maintenance performed by Russians. Ugandan techs are incapable to take care of the fighters themselves..
I don't doubt that Russian fighters are cheaper than the Western competitors, they would have to be given Russia's predominantly 3rd-world customer base. What they aren't is one half or one third the cost of the cheapest Western fighters.
Nobody can build a modern fighter for less than half the cost of an F-16 or Gripen, and if somebody could it wouldn't be Russia. (and it wouldn't be a heavy-weight twin engined design)
You might have missed that completely but your beliefs are utterly irrelevant. The reality is virtually punching you into the face..
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 4th January 2017 at 01:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This has two reasons.. 1. very small batch.. 2. Ugandan deal is similar to the Middle East deals - incl. complete support and long-term on-spot maintenance performed by Russians. Ugandan techs are incapable to take care of the fighters themselves..
You might have missed that completely but your beliefs are utterly irrelevant. The reality is virtually punching you into the face..
That's right, God must have missed you completely on that one.. Continue making yourself an ignorant fool..
My my, a lot of your usual invective and a lot of your usual missing logic.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 3rd January 2017 at 06:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BMW are for rent not buy. they cant do rough and tough performance and certainly very expensive maintaince. that's why all this Middleast only Russian or Japanese light weight vehicles in war zone.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 3rd January 2017 at 11:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's nice but I am not living in a war zone..Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 3rd January 2017 at 12:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, I am making an argument here.. I have explained the price difference to you..- the deal is $75 mil a piece, but India will be left with a huge amount of left-over titanium and other raw materials which they can resell or recycle.. (or dump)
- the deal was closed in 2014 RUB/USD exchange rate. In today's terms it would be only ~$41 mil and in Feb 2016 prices even less, only ~$32 mil
If you still think it's not enough for you to grasp it, you can dig deeper by yourself, I've provided you plenty of hints, you know where to start..
That's the problem.. you don't have any details on that, but you're still playing smarta$$.. These cost do represent the price to build a complete aircraft, incl. propulsion.. In the case of Su-30SM or Su-30MKI even the cost of foreign equipment like Thales/Samtel displays, Thales or El-Op HUD, etc. It depends.. I have five, four are German (as long as you count Cooper S as a BMW product) and one is US-made. ;)Posts: 145
By: APRichelieu - 3rd January 2017 at 13:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Gripen order for Brazil includes a lot of extras.
The cost of Gripen E for the Swedish Air Force is estimated to 35,6 B SEK for 60 planes.
The dollar rate is 9,18 which would give 65 M$ per plane.
The dollar rate was probably a little bit lower when the estimation was done, so real figure would be higher.
Price is probably based on cannibalizing Gripen C for some components, again making price higher for completely new planes.
I have seen the figure $72 M per plane.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 3rd January 2017 at 13:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
???? Name a recent contract that does not include a lot of "extras".
Look at the Swedish contract for the Gripen E, they aren't 72 million. I forget the figure, but it was in the high 80's, low 90's.
The original contract between Saab and FMV was SEK 47.2 billion for the development and modification of Gripen C into E ( 85.8 million dollars per aircraft in today's exchange rate, but contract was 2013). Since then, the Swiss dropped out and Sweden is getting new build aircraft.
Posts: 2,661
By: Vnomad - 3rd January 2017 at 17:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Except that having a heap of waste titanium is a pretty normal state of affairs for any such production for aviation products anywhere in the world. And the huge amount isn't really a huge amount (in monetary terms).
Its the process of machining titanium that is an energy intensive and expensive venture. The metal itself isn't that expensive (and what's left over is probably sold off as scrap).
The press releases from the Russian MoD/OEM do not say what's included and what's not. Engines for one were contracted separately by India (follow-on).
UMPO to Start Shipping Engines to India
What is and isn't included in the domestic contracts for the OEM still remains an unknown factor.
Posts: 9,579
By: TR1 - 3rd January 2017 at 20:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Engines are part of the contract when Russian MOD orders domestic planes.
Usually MOD makes a contract with "Russian Helicopters", or UAC, or Sukhoi, who then posts its own engine contracts.
MOD generally does not individually contract out engines unless it is a re-engine scheme within its own ARZ (avia-repair-factories).
We can safely discount weapons (MOD buys them sepretly, from say Tactical Missile Corps), there are no long term support packages obviously....but the price is for the bird and all integrated systems.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 3rd January 2017 at 21:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Brazilian deal is about very special extras, like a production line for another 100+ fighters, incl. re-export rights.
Name a recent contract which includes that..
Posts: 621
By: Yama - 3rd January 2017 at 23:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's true Su-30 sales have been often reported for very low prices:
-Malaysia 18 Su-30MKM's (and two Malaysian cosmonauts for ISS) for $900M, 50 million USD per plane in 2003. Configuration is very similar to MKI, ie. top-end.
-Algeria, latest order was 14 aircraft reportedly for $500M, 36 million each, but this price estimate might have been guess by journalists.
-Venezuela, latest order (2015) is 12 Su-30's for $480M, 40 million per plane. I don't know avionics etc. configuration of Venezuelan planes.
-Vietnam, 2013 order of 12 planes was reportedly for $450M, $37,5million per plane. However this order has been also reported as $600 million (50 million per plane).
-Uganda's 2011 order of six aircraft was for $740 million - 123 million per aircraft!
This news article examines Vietnamese deals, and mentions that 8 Su-30's were $400M "without weapons" in 2009, next 12 "with weapons and spares" were $1 billion (83 million per plane) and next 12 were $600 million. Seems to me that some of the quoted very low prices for Su-30 deals cover only part of the deal, maybe only the initial batch, also they apparently often include only the planes themselves, not any accompanying spares etc (note the analoguous controversy about F-35 vs Super Hornet pricing in Danish evaluation). Also, Su-30 is available in variety of configurations, not all of which feature thrust vectoring engines and state-of-the-art avionic sets. I also wonder if some extraordinaly low prices were actually refurbished Su-27UB's which were given Su-30 type avionics sets and weapon wirings.
Ugandan deal probably is the most comparable "all inclusive" deal similar to what Western manufacturers offer to 3rd world countries: weapons, spares, simulators, training, support etc. If so, $123 million apiece is still reasonably cheap, but not "omg I'll buy a hundred" cheap.
Posts: 145
By: APRichelieu - 3rd January 2017 at 23:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The figure published by SAAB at the Gripen E rollout in May 2016 was 35,6 billion SEK for 60 aircrafts,
which is $65M at a 9,18 exchange rate.
The quote for Denmark was 22B Dkr for 48 aircrafts or $64M per aircraft (580 MSek), including spares.
http://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/har-ar-prislappen-pa-super-jas-6409662
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 4th January 2017 at 00:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's believeable. The above figure I gave included development cost for Swedish contract. The Danish one I am curious on:
That would essentially mean that Saab is not rolling dev costs into the package offered to Denmark, or the quote is a "flyaway" cost.
I also noticed that FMV has signed separate contracts for HMD, skyward IRST, Raven AESA. This may be similar to the flyaway of the Super Hornet that does not include government furnished equipment (like radar).
http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/gripen-raven-radar
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 4th January 2017 at 00:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I could certainly believe $123 million each, and even less than that. I don't doubt that Russian fighters are cheaper than the Western competitors, they would have to be given Russia's predominantly 3rd-world customer base. What they aren't is one half or one third the cost of the cheapest Western fighters.
Nobody can build a modern fighter for less than half the cost of an F-16 or Gripen, and if somebody could it wouldn't be Russia. (and it wouldn't be a heavy-weight twin engined design)
A little commons sense should tell people that, but then common sense isn't evenly distributed it seems...
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 4th January 2017 at 00:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It does not matter. SUVs like Landcruiser and Gaz Tigr has very high RTI index so the suspension don't get deformed over curbs and potholes that enable it long life tires plus high resale. Germanic vehicles will bankrupt a country. Not even Middleastern Police is using them in mass quantities as they not reliable.. Than add Ambulance and cargo truckd based on Germanic tech. Let see how many Germanic vehicles and tanks Turkey use in syria. They are lucky that SAA and Ruaf is not blasting them. Lufthansa Technik and Turkish Technic are carbon copy.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 4th January 2017 at 00:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ruaf is adding 6 times more fighter per year than IAF and they are far modern and diverse in capabilities. It's understandable that F16 will be several times more expensive than Su-30SM as Su30SM is majority built in Siberia where there is no population, turnover and cost pressure like Texas.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 4th January 2017 at 00:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russia's military industry is thriving.
and its always funny to see people scoff about Russia being low tech while they are the only ones capable of bringing man into space.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 4th January 2017 at 00:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another RT viewer it seems...
http://www.china.org.cn/china/2016-12/27/content_39988627.htm
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 4th January 2017 at 01:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ever looked at a Chinese rocket ? Its a lot like looking at Chinese aircraft carriers. Even those space suits in that picture..
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 4th January 2017 at 01:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They're classic Su-30MK2, just like Vietnam, Uganda or Chinese Navy use. No, there is no variety of configurations. There are just two.. KnAAZ-built Su-30MK2 (discontinued recently) and IAZ-built Su-30MKI, incl. russianized mod called Su-30SM. There is nothing else..And you can't modify an Su-27UB into an Su-30 as they are structurally different, don't make things up.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 4th January 2017 at 01:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This has two reasons.. 1. very small batch.. 2. Ugandan deal is similar to the Middle East deals - incl. complete support and long-term on-spot maintenance performed by Russians. Ugandan techs are incapable to take care of the fighters themselves.. You might have missed that completely but your beliefs are utterly irrelevant. The reality is virtually punching you into the face..Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 4th January 2017 at 01:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My my, a lot of your usual invective and a lot of your usual missing logic.
Do keep trying your best though. :rolleyes: