Production Costs of Aircrafts/Helicopters

zepia wrote:Su-57 is roughly cost 30% more than Su-35. Being an entirely new platform that's not bad at all.
And the Checkmate projection cost is around the Su-35 price range. That's interesting.

The reported price of the Su-57 seems to be in line with the estimations we did here previously, so maybe we are not that bad after all

As to the Checkmate, the reported price was meant for export, so it should be really cheap to produce indeed, probably between 1 and 1.5 billion

I too wonder why the Su-30 is so low cost compared to the Su-35. So much in them is common between them both.

Αnd Ka-52M cost is almost equal to Su-30SM

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.

I doubt the figure about the su-30. It shouldn't be far from su-35 price.

I presume they are talking about the original Su-30 which is an SM upgraded Su-27 really...

The upgraded Su-30s should be a similar price to the Su-35 because they are essentially Su-35s with two seats now... so they share all systems and parts...

Indians have paid their mki around 70 million piece. Su-30MK2/MKM are around 35-40 million $.

The most expensive parts in the Su-30MKI were the French and Israeli parts which pushed the price up considerably.

These days they could probably get Su-35s for less and those aircraft without any foreign bits added would likely have superior performance too.

Its still cheaper. You'd be hard pressed to find a Western jet that goes for sub-100 million $ a pop.

Exactly.... and that is a serious issue... the Indians are demanding F-16 and Rafale quality aircraft and are expecting to pay MiG-21 prices... and it simply does not work that way.

LMFS wrote:The reported price of the Su-57 seems to be in line with the estimations we did here previously, so maybe we are not that bad after all

As to the Checkmate, the reported price was meant for export, so it should be really cheap to produce indeed, probably between 1 and 1.5 billion

Oh, I was thought the $30m number is for domestic.
If they can manage to export with that price, even in the-least-option-possible form, it will really be market disrupter.

d_taddei2 wrote: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.

The Su-34 has entirely different front section, the radar, the cockpit, the landing gears, the tail string radar, the EW suite and other subsystems.
It is share only few parts with other planes in the platform. Therefor less cost sharing.

That is my two cent.

Oh, I was thought the $30m number is for domestic.

No. When they announced the figures there was no indication the Russian Air Force was even interested in it... that is the export price... and more importantly the operational costs are supposed to be 5-6K per hour, which is comparable to early model F-16s and Gripen which are obviously not 5th gen fighters...

If they can manage to export with that price, even in the-least-option-possible form, it will really be market disrupter.

That is the idea... cheap to buy and cheap to operate so instead of buying 12 or 24 or 36 at most... you could buy 100 or 200... and actually operate them.

Countries kept the MiG-21 in service for so long because its low operational costs made it affordable to keep flying it, while heavier more expensive aircraft were not being flown so much because of their operational costs.

Imagine the F-35 in UK service at 90K pounds per flight hour operational costs... even rich western countries that love to piss away money on war can't afford that.

The Su-34 has entirely different front section, the radar, the cockpit, the landing gears, the tail string radar, the EW suite and other subsystems.
It is share only few parts with other planes in the platform. Therefor less cost sharing.

Very good point... it is an optimised strike model that does not share radar or avionics or engines, though in future they could use standard engines for all their Flankers just to save a little money as there are no specific requirements for the Su-34 that would prevent it benefiting from using new engines for Su-35s and also used on the Su-30s.

The cost of some Russian military aircraft, helicopters and missiles

Unit prices

Su-57: 3.192 million rubles.

Il-76 (Candid): 3.710 million rubles.

Ka-52: 1.177 million rubles.

R-77-1 (AA-12B Adder) missile: 29.9 million rubles

LMUR (or Izdeliye 305): 14.2 million rubles (including 18% VAT).

Mi-8AMTSh-VN helicopter: 1.015 million rubles.


https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4657206.html

Those numbers are way off... millions and billions mixed up I suspect... an Su-57 fifth gen stealth fighter costing 3.1 million rubles... isn't that less than 2 million dollars?

And the LMUR missile costing three or four times more than a fifth gen stealth fighter at 14 million rubles... you need to recheck those numbers... though I would like to buy several of those Mi-8 helicopters... 1 million rubles sounds like a bargain... and New Zealand could do with two dozen Il-76s at that price...

This is 3.2 billions, Garry for Su-57, according to article. George made a typo. Billions are for other planes. Question is if prices are correct at all.

For what i have read in the article, determining the real price it's (as usual) a mess.
To begin with, the price vary depending from the batch.
Il-76 is high because the price of the batch considered comprised some modification and the setting up of a new serial assembly line.
Prices are for the item only so the money spent in development only it's not considered.
In the opposite case the most costly one would be MiG-35 instead , as all the development costs would be distributed in less than twelve planes.

Another factor is support... if it is a countries first plane then they will need all the support equipment and materials to keep it operating, as well as training.

If they have been using them for years then it might just include the aircraft and the spare parts needed to top up the spare parts pool for the current fleet.

Simulators might also be included in the price as well as dummy and real munitions.

So;

Su-57: 3.192 billion rubles.

Il-76 (Candid): 3.710 billion rubles.

Ka-52: 1.177 billion rubles.

R-77-1 (AA-12B Adder) missile: 29.9 million rubles

LMUR (or Izdeliye 305): 14.2 million rubles (including 18% VAT).

Mi-8AMTSh-VN helicopter: 1.015 billion rubles.

So at current exchange rates that means the Su-57 is about 44 million... so about three for the price of an F-35.

The Il-76 is about 51 million per aircraft which is peanuts compared to the half a trillion most countries paid for their C-17s... the C-17 can carry heavy loads but it is not worth 10 times more, or should I say 10 x Il-76s for the same price as one C-17 would be rather more useful.

The Ka-52 is about 25 million which is not bad compared with Apaches and Euro helos.

400K for an R-77-1 is actually rather good value for money, and 195K for LMUR is good value for money really considering it is a state of the art IIR missile with good range and allows the launch aircraft to change targets right up till the last second.

14 million for the special forces night assault helicopter that can carry 32 troops is a freaken bargain... the closest equivalent would be a Blackhawk which would be rather more expensive or a Chinook... the Indian Chinooks were about 75 million each...

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.

In the 1990s an interesting source of western defence intel was the computer game... games like Apache Havoc and Gunship and M1 Abrams all listed vehicles and had small descriptions.

I seem to remember one scathing description of the BTR-60 being used as evidence that the Soviets hated their soldiers and didn't care for their survivability.

The opposite was true.

The BTR-60 family was a great example of sensible use of funds to get your troops protected and mobile without having to spend too much money.

They had the BMP-1 and could have made all their troops ride in such vehicles but the Soviets couldn't afford that many tracked vehicles... to buy or to operate because operational costs of tracked vehicles are significant.

If the Soviets didn't use the BTR family most troops would ride in trucks or walk.

In comparison a BTR-60 is not super heavy armoured, but it does have protection from small arms fire and fragments, and is very mobile on roads and cross country... the 14.5mm HMG combines the fire power of a HMG and a 20mm cannon in a reliable gun, and the vehicle is fully amphibious.

Better mobility than a truck, with light armour protection and fire power better than most western APCs of the time.

For a price not that much more than the truck it would replace.

BTR-70 and BTR-80 only got better in terms of performance and capability.

Laughed when the US adopted the LAV series of vehicles... they had to shut up about the moaning they did over a wheeled vehicle near the front line... I seem to remember one game manual suggesting the BTR-60 would not exist if the Soviets had a congress to cancel such silly ideas.

Of course this was at a time when Commanche was going to be the next super helicopter and the M16 was to be replaced etc etc...