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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So at current exchange rates that means

Yup, that is why the article George has taken the numbers makes some voo doo rain dance after, applying some bizarre math and correction parameters to come up with a conclusion, that those are the same or even more expensive than the Murica ones
I love this kind of logic when they shoot their own feet without even recognizing that in the beginning.
If the other would be true then the Russian economy - capable to field let's say 200 tanks per year, for years - must be much, much bigger than claimed, right?
Shouldn't the numbers be adjusted with the same voo doo math?
Oh, no?
Why?