Production Costs of Aircrafts/Helicopters

So if we are going by export prices and actual prices the price difference is huge. So does this mean that the Su-34 will be cheaper than the Su-30SM? I read an article where Russia suggested it paid $36mn a piece for Su-34 and going by other articles they numbers given that Russia paid for aircraft would now seem not accurate but inflated.

"The Russian Armed Forces have received a total of 83 Su-34s, costing $36 million apiece"

Is a Su-34 really more expensive than a Su-30SM ($19.7mn more)? Is the Su-34 really more expensive than the Su-35 ($4.6mn more)? And is the su-34 really just $5.2mn cheaper than the Su-57?

I personally feel these figures are too cheap. I might be wrong but I feel something isn't accurate.

Having studied soviet equipment as part of my job in the British Army those of us who did never put down the equipment completely yes some had its flaws, but so did our own equipment and ours was far more expensive. The Soviets built equipment on mass, it had to be robust, reliable, capable of all terrains, and many was FULLY amphibious not like our definition of which was anything that could ford 1m+ the Soviet equipment was what we say fit for purpose and it wasn't expensive. Although the equipment since then has been modernised or more sophisticated and prices have increased but nowhere near to what the west costs are. There is a few reasons Russia had a successful export market, equipment fit for purpose, cheaper than the west's equipment and no red tape. And in some cases the west has no equivalent.

People in the west like to slag off soviet and Russian equipment but yet never put there aircraft etc within range of it. The west was impressed with S-300, Tor, Buk that I can assure u. And I have said it before on here while the British used Saxon APC for its mechanised forces (early 2000's) the Russians were using BTR-80 which is a millions times better. Better mobility, better armour, bigger troop compartment, better firepower, and fully amphibious. Saxon was a death trap in the mud often tipping over which I witnessed a few times and on one occasion killed a young new to the battalion officer. We hated them build for streets of northern Ireland not  for fields. Might I add before Saxon the British army were pretty much using trucks to move troops around, Saracen wasn't widely used and was mostly used in northern Ireland. The Soviets by the time the British started using the idea of mechanised forces had already been using BTR-152, BTR-60, BTR-70 and around the time Saxon APC was adopted for the role BTR-80 was in full service and upgrades being looked at along with the introduction of BTR-90 which saw small numbers but was a good vehicle. Had a British mechanised force came across a Russian equivalent when would have been screwed. If am honest Saxons were only used to bring us to the fields or within many Kms from the enemy and then everything was on foot it was safer. Armed with only a GPMG firepower wasnt great and we took it with us when dismounted. The Russians on the other hand had the mobility and protection to get closer and provide actual firepower, and back then 14.5mm was still a formidable round. And the amphibious capabilities of the BTR gave them far more options in terms of routes and advances to battle.