Military Review

The plane is like an ingot of gold. Paradoxes of modern aviation

101



Economics is the most boring science. But everything changes when it comes to the cost of modern aviation complexes.

Is it true that the Raptor superbounder stands like an ingot of gold of the same mass?

How are things with the F-35 program? A lightweight fighter, created as an “Air Force workhorse,” gradually outperforms its F-22 “older brother” in value. Or is it all just an illusion?

The cost of an hour of flight "Eurofighter Typhoon", according to various estimates, ranges from 15 to 40 thousand dollars - what caused such a wide range of results?

Which of the combat aircraft is considered the most expensive in the world?

What determines the cost of aircraft?

How do the products of the domestic aviation industry look against their western counterparts?

Prologue

Iron bird stands on the ground. Ambient temperature + 20 ° С. A gentle breeze tickles the grass on the airfield of the airfield, filling the soul with peace and serenity.

After 10 minutes, the plane will take a train at an altitude of 10 000 meters, where the temperature behind will drop below minus 50 ° and the atmospheric pressure will be five times lower than that of the Earth’s surface. Any of the Earth "Mercedes" is guaranteed to stall in such conditions - and the plane has yet to fly thousands of kilometers and complete the task. Supersonic speeds, maneuvers in both planes, dangerous overloads - turbulent blades burn in a raging blue flame, but turbine blades do not burn, drives and hydraulics buzz hard, and necessary climatic conditions are maintained in the avionics avionics.

Aviation is a true triumph of the human mind over the forces of nature. An edge of progress where the best developments in the field of materials science, microelectronics, engine-building and all related fields of science and technology are realized.

The winged ship is able to control the space for tens and hundreds of kilometers around. Modern optoelectronic systems allow a pilot to distinguish an armed person from an unarmed person from a great height, detect the embers of an extinct fire or the trail of a passing car, direct bomb and rocket weapon accurate to one meter. Super-maneuverability, thrust-to-weight ratio, close to 1, controlled thrust vector, radar with active phased antenna array (AFAR), technology for reducing visibility. In view of its transcendental characteristics, modern combat aviation is not a cheap “toy”.

The plane is like an ingot of gold. Paradoxes of modern aviation

Sighting system fighter F-35

I risk killing the intrigue of the whole story, but the situation looks unequivocal: all modern combat aircraft from the “first line” (Su-35 fighters, Su-34 tactical bombers, F-15E export versions - with a maximum take-off weight over 30 tons and full compliance 4 + generation requirements have approximately equal cost.

With the same method of counting, a fully equipped machine of such a level (excluding the cost of R & D, additional sets of spare parts and weapons) will cost the customer about 100 million dollars for one aircraft. Regardless of the developer, manufacturer and country in which this magnificent winged machine was created.

The light multipurpose Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and modern F-16 modifications are not lagging behind their “senior brethren” - their value in the global arms market is on average 80 ... 100 million. Even the small Swedish Gripen is unlikely will give cheaper. The only thing that saves the customer when choosing these machines is the complexity of maintenance and operating costs of the F-16 and the Company are significantly lower than those of the "heavy class" interceptors and fighter-bombers.


Multi-functional lightweight fighter F-16

Separately, there is a question on the "fifth generation". With a similar method of counting, the cost of the F-22 Interceptor Fighter "Raptor" is ≈200 million dollars per unit. Of course, this figure does not include the cost of research and development work on the theme “fifth-generation fighter”.

The lighter F-35 basic modification "A" tends to get into the "price niche" to the generation of fighters "4 +". Otherwise, it doesn’t have so many advantages to successfully compete with modern modifications of the F-15E and 15SE, Silent Hornet, Rafale and Typhoon. It is expected that in the case of the start of large-scale production, the cost of the F-35A will not exceed 100 million. Deck modification and "verticalization" will be 20 percent more expensive - however, these versions did not find interest in the global arms market.

Russian way

It is not possible to make an exact comparison of the cost of Russian and foreign aircraft, due to the absence of any detailed information on pricing methods and insider features of the domestic aircraft industry. The only thing that is possible in this situation is to draw a number of general conclusions based on information from open sources and the obvious conditions of Russian reality.

Factors affecting the reduction in the cost of Russian combat aircraft:

- relatively low level of labor remuneration of aviation industry specialists - compared to their European and overseas counterparts;

- relative scarcity of onboard radio-electronic equipment (avionics). Whatever the manufacturers of domestic radio electronics reiterated, today none of the aircraft in service with the Russian Air Force (or exported by Russia) have a radar with an active HEADLIGHT. The remarkable H035 “Irbis” (radar Su-35) in fact is a radar with PPAR on a gimbal, i.e. with mechanical scanning in azimuth. Also, there are no domestic analogues of universal outboard sighting and navigation containers like the LANTIRN, LITENING or SNIPER used on all types of combat aircraft of the United States and NATO countries. The range of domestic air-to-surface guided munitions is significantly limited.

The only thing that brightens gray days is the T-50 aircraft with the tail number 55. The fifth flight prototype of the Russian fighter "fifth generation", which has a full set of the latest avionics, including Radar with AFAR NXXX and four additional AFAR placed in slats - there are no analogues of this system in the world. As, however, while there are no serial T-036.


Radar with AFU Zhuk-AE (export). It is assumed that these radars will be equipped with MiG-35 fighters.

- lack of desire / need to create new production lines and update funds. It is no secret that domestic aircraft are mostly assembled in workshops and on production lines built back in Soviet times. The management of the United Aircraft Building Corporation (UAC) would consider it unreasonable luxury to build a new plant for each type of aircraft - like the production complex in Fort Worth (pc. Texas), where the final assembly of the F-35 is performed. The one-and-a-half-kilometer conveyor to Fort Worth allows you to assemble fighter jets on 360 per year (this is the estimated delivery rate of the F-35 since the 2017 year). Such capacity is simply useless to the Russian aviation industry - such production will never pay off. The assembly of 10-20 fighters a year is easier to master in piece mode, in production facilities left over from Soviet times - only partially replacing equipment and tools.

Factors affecting the increase in the cost of domestic aircraft:

- corruption. The low wages of specialists are completely “compensated” by the greed of individuals in the leadership of the KLA. However, the top management of the company Lockheed-Martin or the French “Dassault Aviation” is also not distinguished by disinterestedness. All of them, one way or another, use their official position for personal purposes. Ultimately, the exact amount of the contract depends on who, with whom and about what was able to agree.

- small-scale (piece) production. In this case, the effect of scale disappears (reducing the cost per unit of production while increasing the scale of its production), which negatively affects the final cost of the product. Complicated, high-tech production is particularly affected - the cost of an AFAR assembled in this way from thousands of individual receiving-transmitting modules takes off to the skies. No less expensive are hand-stamped carbon fiber wing parts.

- experiments with controlled thrust vectoring. Ensuring the forward movement of parts under considerable load, under conditions of extremely high temperatures and aggressive environments, while maintaining the high reliability of the entire system, is an extremely complex technical problem whose solution requires special approaches in the design and creation of new materials. The difficult and long period of R & D, production and testing of operational prototypes, flight tests of airplanes with UHT / OBT engines is a laborious and costly process. Not to mention the operation of such a system in combat units. Sometimes the question arises - was the game worth the candle?


MiG-29K on the deck of the aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya"

We do not know how much Russian combat aircraft cost - this information is classified. But we can guess this by using circumstantial evidence:

12 March 2010 was signed a contract to supply India with a second batch of 29 deck fighters MiG-29K. The contract value is 1,5 billion US dollars. Deliveries are scheduled to begin with 2012.

- from news reports for 2010 year

Approximately 50 million per plane. In this case, we are talking about a light class fighter (with a maximum take-off weight of 22,5 tons), not burdened with radars with AFAR and engines with UWT.

In such conditions, it will not be surprising if the cost of the most modern Su-35 interceptor is “over-the-top” for $ 100 million.

The tactical bomber Su-34 (also known as T-10В-1), built on the famous T-10 platform, which became the ancestor of the entire family of Su planes with 27 and 30 / 35 indices, is no cheaper. The maximum take-off weight within 45 tons and the presence of unique titanium armored capsules are unlikely to simplify production and reduce the cost of this powerful aircraft.

It is curious that the Wikipedia information resource continues to provide a link to news 8-year-old, according to which the cost of producing one “Duckling” was estimated at 1 billion rubles (≈32 million dollars - I am sure that even then the Su-34 plane was much more expensive).


Entrance to the cockpit of the Su-34

No less amusing are the messages in the media, when narrating the results of the outgoing year, the total number of combat aircraft received by the Air Force, including light YTS-YN-130 and highly powerful Su-34 aircraft complexes, is considered simultaneously. Moreover, the 35-tonne "Yak" is simply incomparable with aircraft from the "first line" - neither in cost nor in terms of combat capabilities.

Modern aviation - extremely expensive thing. And high-quality aviation systems are even more expensive.

How are things "they"?

With all the variety of designs and the exorbitant appetites of managers of American aircraft manufacturing corporations, the overseas approach to estimating the cost of aircraft is striking in its transparency (illusion?), Healthy logic and pragmatism.

Obviously, the cost of each system depends on the cost of its individual elements (WBS - Work Breakdown Structure), as well as the stages of manufacture and operation - if there is a need to calculate the cost of the entire system life cycle. From this moment begins the main thriller - the determining factor is the method of counting: how they thought and what they took into account in their calculations.


What determines the cost of the aircraft. Below is a detailed explanation of the table.


As a rule, the basic concept is “flyaway cost” - the cost of producing one aircraft, taking into account all the necessary materials, labor costs and the cost of the production line (spreads over all). This is the figure that prevails in many documents and official reports, since shows the minimum possible value, compared to other ways of counting.

The sum in the "flyaway cost" box caresses the eye and warms the soul, but the Pentagon buys the equipment at the "weapon cost" price (in a broader sense - "procurement cost") - the total cost of the combat system. Unlike the previous one, this method of calculation takes into account such specific and invisible factors with the naked eye as:

- the cost of auxiliary equipment and tools supplied with the aircraft;

- one-time costs under the contract (a course for pilots to manage a new car, install and configure software, etc.);

- consultations and technical support from the manufacturer, a basic set of spare parts.

As a result, the cost of the aviation complex increases by about 40% compared to the base part of the flyaway cost. The canonical example - the flyaway cost of the F / A-18E / F multipurpose fighter-bomber is 57,5 million, while its weapon cost is 80,4 million (data for the 2012 fiscal year).


F-15E hung with arms

But this is not the limit. There are much more serious numbers, for example, “program acquisition cost” - the total cost of developing and building an aviation complex, taking into account the cost of all R & D, the construction of prototypes and the costs of passing factory and government tests. It is clear that the development of a new aircraft is extremely difficult and time consuming, especially if we are talking about such innovative machines as stealth bombers and fifth generation fighters. Half of the funds allocated to the program are usually spent on research - later, this amount is divided into all, increasing the cost of each fighter almost doubled compared to the "weapon / procurement cost".

The total cost of the program (R & D + the cost of creating a production line + the cost of materials and labor for building each aircraft) is extremely popular in the media. That it is mentioned when in the next mock F-22 “invisible”. With this method of calculating the cost of "Raptor" is now 412 million dollars per each efficient aircraft - like an ingot of gold of the same mass!

However, R & D costs are subsequently returned in the form of new technologies in the field of aircraft manufacturing, microelectronics, and all related fields of science and technology. As they say the Yankees: Money spent on the brain is never spent in vain.

The final stage of the tragicomedy is "life cycle cost" - the cost of the entire life cycle of the system. Production costs, costs of R & D, upgrades, spare parts, fuel, preparation and maintenance of pilots, disposal at the end of life. They try not to utter a terrible figure out loud in order to avoid righteous anger from pacifists and other bona fide taxpayers.

Once such a figure "leaked" to the press - and the military had problems. This is an incredible bomber B-2 "Spirit", whose life-cycle cost exceeded 2 billion dollars in prices 17-year-old! (there is reason to believe that this amount did not include fuel)

However, at the same time, the “procurement cost” of a strategic stealth bomber was 929 million dollars - not so much for an innovative machine with a maximum take-off weight of 170 tons. For comparison, now the passenger Boeing-747 cost airlines ≈ 350 million dollars per unit. Of course, civil aircraft do not have radar with AFAR, no technology to reduce visibility, or sighting systems or EW equipment, similar to the onboard equipment of the Spirit.



The myth of the unjustified high cost of the B-2 does not stand up to meeting the real facts. Of course, a comparison of the full life cycle of a large strategic bomber with optimistic figures for the cost of lighter aircraft (as a rule, without taking into account their R & D) gave an incorrect result. B-2 has become a mockery.

As for the domestic aviation industry, open information about the cost of R & D, spare parts and the life cycle of combat aircraft does not exist. This information is a state secret, a trade secret of the KLA and, in principle, is not intended for the general public.

Of no less interest is the concept of “cost per flight hour”. This concept includes not only fuel consumption and standard hours after flight maintenance, but also the cost of building an aircraft — the car “works out” the funds invested in it from the design stage every hour of flight.

In this case, there are several reliable options at once - depending on the source data. The selected cost is divided by the estimated airframe resource (as a rule, for modern aircraft it is 4000 ... 8000 hours) - eventually, there can be a spread of data from 15 to 40 thousand dollars per flight hour, as happened in the Italian Air Force manual when discussing Perspectives fighter "Eurofighter Typhoon." And everyone will be right in their own way.

The cost of modern aviation is huge. But, as the old truth says - who does not want to feed his army, will feed someone else's. However, one should not forget that uncontrolled spending on “defense” is also capable of ruining any country. Measure in all - this is the key to success.





Author:
101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim 20 March 2014 08: 02
    -3
    Mdaa, gold American planes. Maybe our fighters are poorer in electronics, however, in battle they are made at times, even those old models with an experienced pilot.
    1. Rambiaka
      Rambiaka 20 March 2014 08: 27
      +3
      An essential caveat is "with an experienced pilot". And Serdyuchka with training cadres, not only cut the wings of the pilots ...
      1. washi
        washi 20 March 2014 12: 57
        +4
        Quote: Rambiaka
        An essential caveat is "with an experienced pilot". And Serdyuchka with training cadres, not only cut the wings of the pilots ...

        He increased. The reduction went under the tag, and under EBE generally sought to 0
    2. Andreitas
      Andreitas 20 March 2014 08: 59
      +6
      If they reach them in time, they will not be shot down yet on the way.
    3. ben gun
      ben gun 20 March 2014 11: 40
      0
      Speaking for gold - initially, if my memory serves me as someone, every extra kilogram of dry weight of an aircraft (LA) was compared with a bar of gold, because this extra kilogram caused an increase in fuel consumption, which in terms of the aircraft’s lifespan, this kilogram did not even become gold.
    4. patsantre
      patsantre 20 March 2014 12: 46
      +1
      One more ... Maybe tell us about the real battles of our modern aircraft with their aircraft? How stupid you have to be request
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 20 March 2014 16: 38
        -3
        Quote: patsantre
        Another one...


        Anton, why are you so attached to "Uryaism" belay .I have a feeling that you only write posts for their sake. Moreover, you attack almost everyone, even with a small diagnosis of this.

        Quote: patsantre
        Can you tell us about the real battles of our modern aircraft with their aircraft?


        I agree that avionics and stealth technologies are one of the most important requirements for a fighter nowadays, but there have been cases where speed and maneuverability played a major role. Remember the aerial fights F-4 and MiG-21, where the Vietnamese almost brought to nothing the American advantage in radio-electronic equipment. Even in cases of victory of the Phantoms, it was their ability to fight in Dog Fight that helped the Americans, and not the modern properties of their fighters.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 20 March 2014 18: 40
          +4
          So I did not even say a word about our aircraft being worse. But screaming that they will "do at once" American, even not so, screaming that they DO ONCE them, is the height of idiocy.
          Quote: supertiger21
          . Remember the air battles F-4 and MiG-21

          We are talking about modern aircraft, since that time a lot of water has flowed under the bridge, but I'm not saying that maneuverability is unnecessary! These clowns just freeze me. In yesterday's article, one of these gave out a pearl "Virginia Borey is not good enough" without even bothering to at least superficially study these nuclear submarines, even without taking into account the fact that the ships are somehow different in tasks and there is no point in comparing them.
          And such woodpeckers here are almost half the audience. At the time, at least do not read comments (
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 20 March 2014 19: 05
            0
            Quote: patsantre
            So I did not even say a word about our aircraft being worse. But screaming that they will "do at once" American, even not so, screaming that they DO ONCE them, is the height of idiocy.


            Well, narrow-minded people can be left without attention. For them, our weapon has always been, is and will be "the most powerful and unparalleled in the world." Although, on the other hand, most of these people are probably true patriots, but I don’t think that this is how you should show your patriotism.

            Quote: patsantre
            In yesterday's article, one of these gave out a pearl "Virginia Borey is not good enough" without even bothering to at least superficially study these nuclear submarines, even without taking into account the fact that the ships are somehow different in tasks and there is no point in comparing them.


            I also get angry when comparing what is created for different purposes. Even comparing the Su-35 and F-35 is incorrect, but this is one of the favorite topics in the aviation section of the VO.

            Quote: patsantre
            And such woodpeckers here are almost half the audience. At the time, at least do not read comments (


            After all, no one forbade the comments of the latter to put "minuses". You can easily use this right. By the way, the "minuses" have a positive effect on many commentators. After them, they write more legibly and clearly, the symptoms of "all-propalism" and "uryaism" after that sometimes they leave. laughing A kind of whip))) wassat
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 20 March 2014 20: 34
              0
              Quote: supertiger21
              .Even the comparison of the Su-35 and F-35 is incorrect, but this is one of the favorite topics in the aviation section of the VO.

              Why not compare them correctly? Both fighters, developments of about the same time, both work both by air and by land.
              1. supertiger21
                supertiger21 20 March 2014 20: 57
                -1
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                Why not compare them correctly? Both fighters, developments of about the same time


                The thing is a few things:
                Firstly, these are fighters of different generations, 4th and 5th.
                Secondly, Drying is a heavyweight and Lightning is closer to light fighters.
                Thirdly, each of them is made in different areas of technology and application strategy.

                Quote: saturn.mmm
                both work both by air and by land.


                Here, let me disagree.
                The Su-35 is primarily a fighter for gaining superiority in the air. It is designed to intercept targets at medium / long range and successfully conduct close air combat. Striking the ground is a secondary task for him and it is given to it worse than the task of an air fighter. that Sukhoi 35 is a fighter with a large slope of work by air.
                The F-35 was created primarily as an aircraft to combat ground targets, mainly against air defense systems. Thanks to this deviation - it lost some of its flying qualities. The deviation was made on stealth technology, because this is one of the assistants in the fight against ground-based air defense. But because of the strict glider lines to achieve stealth, lightning had a bad effect on maneuverability. Nevertheless stealth makes the 35th dangerous in aerial combat, but this is its secondary task .
                And our 35th and their 35th are created for different tasks, which means that comparing them is not very correct.
                The Su-35 must be compared with the F-15SE, and the F-35 at the moment can be compared with the MiG-35 (as an air opponent) and the Su-34 (as an analogue in the role of ground targets).
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 20 March 2014 23: 15
                  0
                  Quote: supertiger21
                  Here, let me disagree.

                  Quote: supertiger21
                  Striking the ground, for him a secondary task

                  Quote: supertiger21
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  both work both by air and by land.

                  So does the Su-35 work on the ground or not?
                  Su-35 generation 4+, F-35 generation 5-.
                  The "Irbis-E" radar control system allows detecting and tracking up to 30 air targets while maintaining the continuity of space coverage, and simultaneously firing up to eight air targets. The complex provides detection, selection and tracking of up to four ground targets in several mapping modes with varying degrees of resolution at a range of up to 400 km while maintaining control over the airspace. The detection range of ground (surface) targets is: for an aircraft carrier type target (EOP 50 m000) - 2 km, "railway bridge" (400 m1000) - 2-150 km, "boat" (200 m200) - 2-100 km, "installation of operational-tactical missiles" and "group of tanks" (120 m30) - 2-60 km.
                  Quote: supertiger21
                  And our 35th and their 35th are created for different tasks

                  Both are multi-purpose.
                  Quote: supertiger21
                  The Su-35 must be compared with the F-15SE, and the F-35 at the moment can be compared with the MiG-35 (as an air opponent) and the Su-34 (as an analogue in the role of ground targets).

                  Mig-35 is also multi-purpose, can work on the ground.
                  1. supertiger21
                    supertiger21 21 March 2014 15: 41
                    0
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    So does the Su-35 work on the ground or not?


                    The fact that he does not work on the ground and did not say a word, but said that he had a bias towards shooting down air targets.

                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    The "Irbis-E" radar control system allows detecting and tracking up to 30 air targets while maintaining the continuity of space coverage, and simultaneously firing up to eight air targets. The complex provides detection, selection and tracking of up to four ground targets in several mapping modes with varying degrees of resolution at a range of up to 400 km while maintaining control over the airspace. The detection range of ground (surface) targets is: for an aircraft carrier type target (EOP 50 m000) - 2 km, "railway bridge" (400 m1000) - 2-150 km, "boat" (200 m200) - 2-100 km, "installation of operational-tactical missiles" and "group of tanks" (120 m30) - 2-60 km.


                    They themselves answered their own question. From this it can be seen that the main task of the Su-35 is a fighter for gaining superiority in the air.

                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    Both are multi-purpose.


                    "Multipurpose" is currently a very vague term, almost all modern fighters are such. But each has a certain bias: "air-to-air" (Su-35) and "air-to-surface" (F-35) - in which a certain the fighter is maximally adapted.

                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    Mig-35 is also multi-purpose, can work on the ground.


                    I won’t argue. It’s also lightweight, so it’s right to compare it with the F-35.
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 21 March 2014 16: 11
                      0
                      Quote: supertiger21
                      I won’t argue. It’s also lightweight, so it’s right to compare it with the F-35.

                      You recalled here that the Mig-35 is light but
                      Quote: supertiger21
                      The Su-35 must be compared with the F-15SE, and the F-35 at the moment can be compared with the MiG-35 (as an air opponent) and the Su-34 (as an analogue in the role of ground targets).

                      Is it nothing that the Su-34 is about 45 tons?
                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      both work both by air and by land.
                      Quote: supertiger21
                      Here, let me disagree.

                      Quote: supertiger21
                      "Multipurpose" is now a very vague term

                      There is a clear definition of this term.
                      MULTIPURPOSE FIGHTERS
                      A fighter is a military aircraft designed to destroy air targets. It is used to escort and protect bombers, transport aircraft, as well as civilian aircraft from enemy fighters. It is also used to protect named objects from attacks by enemy aircraft and to gain air superiority over the battlefield. Less commonly, fighters are used to attack ground and sea targets.

                      Quote: supertiger21
                      But each has a certain bias: "air-to-air" (Su-35) and "air-to-surface" (F-35) - in which a particular fighter is most adapted.

                      That is, the Americans are replacing the F-16, F-15 and F-18 with a strike aircraft?
                      1. supertiger21
                        supertiger21 21 March 2014 19: 15
                        0
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        Is it nothing that the Su-34 is about 45 tons?


                        But nothing that I said was completely different fool ?! I meant that the Su-34 is imprisoned for about the same tasks as the F-35. I did not speak of them as air opponents. Read a little more carefully. hi

                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        There is a clear definition of the term MULTIPURPOSE FIGHTERS


                        Equally successful EVERYTHING does not happen! There is a certain bias in goals.

                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        A fighter is a military aircraft designed to destroy air targets. It is used to escort and protect bombers, transport aircraft, as well as civilian aircraft from enemy fighters. It is also used to protect named objects from attacks by enemy aircraft and to gain air superiority over the battlefield. Less commonly, fighters are used to attack ground and sea targets.


                        You see the last line, where it is written REVIEW, but it is not said that it is SUCCESSFUL. Multipurpose ones can be called those that do two or more works at the same time. The Yankees were F-4, now F-15E, in the future F-35. And our analogs can name the Soviet Su-17 and the modern Su-30MKI.

                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        That is, the Americans are replacing the F-16, F-15 and F-18 with a strike aircraft?


                        In fact, the latest modifications of the F-15, F-16 and F / A-18 are more sharpened in the shock direction. The F-35 will also be a bigger drummer. In the USA, this is a tradition, they always strived for versatility. .
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 22 March 2014 21: 48
                        -1
                        Quote: supertiger21
                        Why not compare them correctly? Both fighters, developments of about the same time, both work both by air and by land.

                        Quote: supertiger21
                        The thing is a few things:
                        Firstly, these are fighters of different generations, 4th and 5th.
                        Secondly, Drying is a heavyweight and Lightning is closer to light fighters.
                        Thirdly, each of them is made in different areas of technology and application strategy.

                        Quote: supertiger21
                        And our 35th and their 35th are created for different tasks, which means that comparing them is not very correct.
                        The Su-35 must be compared with the F-15SE, and the F-35 at the moment can be compared with the MiG-35 (as an air opponent) and the Su-34 (as an analogue in the role of ground targets).

                        If you are comparing the Su-34 with the F-35 for ground targets, why not compare the Su-35 and F-35 for air targets?
                        Quote: supertiger21
                        See the last line where it says MORE,but it is not said that SUCCESSFULLY

                        This is genius.
                        Quote: supertiger21
                        Multipurpose ones can be called those that perform simultaneously two or more jobs well. The Yankees had F-4, now F-15E, in the future F-35. And our counterparts can be called the Soviet Su-17 and the modern Su-30MKI.

                        So you think that the Su-30MKI, like the F-35, is well adapted to work on the surface?
                        I quote an excerpt from Tikhomirov
                        In the second half of January, the Research Institute of Instrument Engineering. V.V. Tikhomirova embarked on flight tests of his new airborne radar station with a phased array - “Irbis-E” (for more details about it, see “Takeoff” No. 4/2006, p. 41). This radar, equipped with a passive headlamp with a diameter of 900 mm with a two-stage hydraulic drive, is designed for installation on a new Su-35 Sukhoi Design Bureau fighter. Being a logical development of the Bars radar used on the Su-30MKI fighter and its modifications, the Irbis is essentially a fundamentally new development, which has significantly wider capabilities. Suffice it to say that the range of viewing angles in azimuth increased from ± 70 to ± 120 °, in elevation - from ± 45 to ± 60 °, and the maximum detection range increased by 2-2,5 times, reaching record levels of 350-400 km (for a fighter type target with a 3 m² image intensifier tube in the front hemisphere when operating in the zone of 100 degrees 2). The number of simultaneously escorted and fired aerial targets simultaneously doubled (to 30 and 8, respectively).

                        The nomenclature and characteristics of the air-to-surface modes significantly expanded, and noise immunity increased.
    5. alicante11
      alicante11 21 March 2014 07: 03
      -1
      One more ... Maybe tell us about the real battles of our modern aircraft with their aircraft? How stupid should be request


      This is just a response to the intrusive "advertising" of Western designs. Why, if THEM can advertise their weapons, we cannot do this?
      Any weapon has both pros and cons. Take a short and two-handed sword. Which weapon is stronger? If there is room for scope and the enemy is not too maneuverable, then a two-handed sword rules. And in the cramped dumps of a warrior with a two-handed sword, there is simply no chance.
      So when comparing our and American aircraft, not only performance characteristics and not only the training of the pilots themselves are very important, but the training of those who will send them into battle. Those who will provide our guys with a "short" fight, and the amers, respectively, will fight at long distances.
      As for the defeats of our aircraft, there are two points. Firstly, in the wars, the main part of the planes was by no means new or modernized, and, often, also in poor technical condition after decades of sanctions. Secondly, now the aircraft itself is not fighting, but a whole complex - detection and target designation tools, electronic warfare equipment. Those who were subjected to NATO aggression did not have any of this at the present level. So where do these victories come from? Whereas in real combat conditions our planes did not collide with amersk planes. Although much is said that when practicing computer models, amers are carried like woodpiles in the winter.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 20 March 2014 08: 22
    +2
    Super! Thank you so much!
  • agent
    agent 20 March 2014 08: 44
    0
    Extreme photo class !!! SU-34 is handsome.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Irokez
      Irokez 20 March 2014 13: 08
      +2
      Quote: agent
      Extreme photo class !!! SU-34 is handsome.

      It’s for sure and the people love and protect it.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. patsantre
        patsantre 20 March 2014 18: 41
        -1
        How does the people protect him?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 March 2014 10: 16
    +23
    I risk killing the intrigue of the whole story, but the situation looks unequivocal: all modern combat aircraft from the “first line” (Su-35 fighters, Su-34 tactical bombers, F-15E export versions - with a maximum take-off weight over 30 tons and full compliance 4 + generation requirements have approximately equal cost.

    This is absolutely not true.
    Let's distract from the aircraft. Take a simple thing like ... a sandwich. More precisely, the Big Mac.
    http://gotomoscow.ru/skolko-stoit-big-mak-v-moskve-i-v-mire/
    The cost of exactly the same big macs in
    RF - 2,34 $
    USA - 3.73 $
    Europe (average) - 4,84%
    It would seem - well, why? After all, something and what, and the manufacture of a sandwich is exactly the same, that in the Russian Federation and in the USA And everything is very simple - a huge number of components affect the cost of the goods. This is the cost of the raw material from which the bootevic is made, and the salary of the cook and seller, and the cost of rent and the cost of a communal apartment for this rent ... All this matters.
    What about fighters?
    If we take the fighters of the Russian Federation and the United States as some spherical horses in a vacuum and assume that they are made of the same materials using the same technologies, under the same conditions and in general - they all are the same, then yes - the manufacturing cost should be approximately the same
    1) Materials. Are they the same? I am being bitten by vague doubts. for example, the US uses some stealth coating, and we? Using the exact same thing? Are the materials the glider is made of the same? And te te and te pe.
    2) Manufacturing Technologies. There is an old joke about space pens. Ordinary pens in space do not write what to do? In the United States, they came up with a pen that can write in space, made 50 pieces, cost of 20 thousand dollars each. In the USSR they began to write with pencils.
    This is a joke. But in every joke there is a fraction of a joke, and the rest is true - the same results can be achieved in different technical ways. So, we do not know the features of aircraft engineering in the United States and the Russian Federation. Oleg suggests that they are generally similar, but is this really so?
    In general, we have an indisputable fact - big mac is done the same way around the world. A plane is completely optional. But even the cost of a big mac in the USA is almost 1,6 times higher than in Russia. So why would fighters cost the same price?
    We do not know how much Russian combat aircraft cost - this information is classified. But we can guess this by using circumstantial evidence:

    Can not:)))
    Oleg, you are comparing aircraft sales prices. They - yes, in approximately similar machines will be approximately the same. Because the price is determined by supply and demand, and aircraft that solve approximately the same tasks for the buyer are approximately equivalent. But the selling price has nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing an airplane
    1. ben gun
      ben gun 20 March 2014 11: 36
      +2
      Andrew, as often happens, hit the nail on the head. in addition to the above differences, there are still a few MEGA nuances. one of them is the assigned product resource. For Americans and bourgeois, the resource assigned to the product as a whole in quantitative terms (true for air engines) is higher than for domestic engines. even with approximately similar details, materials, manufacturing technologies due to the assigned resource on the product, the unit cost of the product will be lower.
    2. ben gun
      ben gun 20 March 2014 11: 54
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      2) Manufacturing Technologies. There is an old joke about space pens. Ordinary pens in space do not write what to do? In the United States, they came up with a pen that can write in space, made 50 pieces, cost of 20 thousand dollars each. In the USSR they began to write with pencils.

      I read such a story. in the USSR, a landing stage was developed for the lunar program. the question arose of how to illuminate the landing zone of the landing module. came to the Queen with the question of what to do and come up with a new spotlight with incandescent lamps, because existing ones do not withstand vibrations and flasks crack. what they were told was to bring a vacuum into the bulb in the bulb into the moon. and made just a spiral that could work without a bulb.
      1. washi
        washi 20 March 2014 13: 15
        +1
        Quote: ben gun
        I read such a story.

        There are many such stories.
        There is simply standard Western thinking, and there is our original one.
        They do not see genius in their own country.
        Zvorykin, Sikorsky, etc.
        Steam engine Polzunov, Radio Popov, etc.
        Good to eat Rogozin. All secrets, allocates money.
        Where is Skolkovo? Where is the return on these grant-eaters?
        1. sergey1828
          sergey1828 20 March 2014 16: 40
          +1
          Recently there was information - two Skolkovo employees - Americans hid US citizens for real terms for theft and corruption in Skolkovo. I wonder how our Foreign Ministry did not protest.
          This is the same as with the supply of Mercedes for the Presidential Administration, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Federal Security Service, and others. German citizens were hid in Germany for giving bribes to Russian officials. In the Russian Federation, bribe-takers were not even scolded - well, how to hammer the West in that large-scale theft is not a bag of potatoes, then the corrupt official will open his mouth during the investigation - and who will you plant then?
    3. Santa Fe
      20 March 2014 12: 17
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Because the price is determined by supply and demand, and aircraft that solve approximately the same tasks for the buyer are approximately equivalent.

      Hj agree, other things being equal, choose the one who is cheaper. And this directly depends on the cost
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Big Mac is done the same way around the world. A plane is completely optional. But even the cost of a big mac in the USA is almost 1,6 times higher than in Russia. So why would fighters cost the same price?

      Since planes, unlike big macs, are made differently

      With the same manufacturing technology of big mac, in the Russian Federation it will be cheaper due to:
      -lower labor costs for the modest toilers of McDonald’s
      -lower transportation costs
      etc.
      Areda, by the way, has little effect - land in any city is expensive, and MD prefers to occupy a place somewhere in the center

      The aviation industry is a completely different scale and a different story. There is a funny book "Why is Russia not America"? (by Parshev) where the non-competitiveness of Russian industry is explained due to the incorrigible natural and climatic conditions of Russia (cold, too long distances - transportation is difficult, etc.) But this is by the way

      The main problems of our UAC are the unprecedented embezzlement at all levels, unit production, less efficient management and lower labor productivity. All this at least equals the cost of our aircraft with Western counterparts (subject to equal performance characteristics and capabilities)

      MIG-29K is cheap compared to Raphael and F / A-18E only because of the scarcity of its avionics
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 March 2014 12: 58
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Hj agree, other things being equal, choose the one who is cheaper. And this directly depends on the cost

        Absolutely not necessary - the acquisition of aircraft is a very specific negotiation, there are a lot of non-economic factors
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        With the same manufacturing technology of big mac, in the Russian Federation it will be cheaper due to:
        -lower labor costs for the modest toilers of McDonald’s
        -lower transportation costs

        Oleg, why would it suddenly cost transport costs at our distances?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Areda, by the way, has little effect - land in any city is expensive, and MD prefers to occupy a place somewhere in the center

        Everything affects Oleg. Sorry, but even if MK sells 1000 bigmaks per day (which is overstated), placing 100 squares when renting 500 rubles per square meter per month will cost 1,6 rubles per bigmak.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        There is a funny book "Why is Russia not America"? (by Parshev) where the non-competitiveness of Russian industry is explained due to the incorrigible natural and climatic conditions of Russia (cold, too long distances - transportation is difficult, etc.) But this is by the way

        And why is Russian bigmac cheaper, Parshev did not tell? :)))
        You see, Oleg, Parshev and others like them all the time confuse the work embodied in the product and the cost of the goods. And this, whatever political economy claims there, is still different things
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The main problems of our KLA are the unprecedented embezzlement at all levels

        Oleg, forget it. As much as the USA stands out for the same R&D, the KLA has never dreamed of.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        MIG-29K is cheap compared to Raphael and F / A-18E only because of the scarcity of its avionics

        This is Mig-29K meager avionics ?! :)))) Have an export version ?! :))))) Oleg, well, you give :))
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 20 March 2014 18: 58
          0
          And what is known about his avionics? Then I agree with Oleg, I judge by the appearance of the cockpit and the presence of AFAR in the radar.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 March 2014 07: 32
            +2
            The bottom line is that Mig-29K export has a completely open architecture and is equipped with avionics at the request of the customer.
            1. Santa Fe
              21 March 2014 14: 26
              -1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              and is equipped with avionics at the request of the customer.

              You probably wanted to say according to the capabilities of the customer)))

              those who choose MiG do not have such opportunities as buyers of the Superhornets.

              The price is known ~ 50 million. Approximately half the price of F / A-18E on the world market. Moreover, the 18th is larger and much more perfect (stealth, AFAR, etc.). And many here continue to "rub in" that the cost of an aircraft on the world market is weakly related to its cost (two fools - they will buy or sell at any price) ...
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 21 March 2014 19: 26
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                You probably wanted to say according to the capabilities of the customer)))

                those who choose MiG do not have such opportunities as buyers of the Superhornets.

                Of course, the Americans will not harness themselves and the French and the Israelis are not against it.
                1. Santa Fe
                  21 March 2014 19: 30
                  +1
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  Of course, the Americans will not harness themselves and the French and the Israelis are not against it.

                  Against what?
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 23 March 2014 22: 22
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Against what?

                    I don't mind installing my own avionics on Russian fighters. On the Su-30MKM avionics were supplied by the French company Thales. The Swedes put in something of their own. The SU-30MKI has a French-Israeli avionics.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The bottom line is that Mig-29K export has a completely open architecture and is equipped with avionics at the request of the customer.

                    The topic does not apply. The Americans with Javelin broke broke and broke, they decided to sell to the Indians, everyone needs money, only there is competition, the Israelis rivet their Spike.
        2. storog.cccp
          storog.cccp 20 March 2014 19: 17
          +1
          The cost of at least a big mac, at least a super-duper-mega-vanderfafly of the x10th generation, does not depend on the cost of production. In the market, as you know, two fools, one sells another buys. Product price is the consensus of the buyer and seller. For example, cars, in America they are cheaper than in Russia. One and the same model with us can cost twice as much and the matter is not only in duties, but also in the buyer's consent to pay this price. Big Mac Russians do not want to buy for expensive, from here and the price. The state can produce (buy) super-duper-vanderfaflu of the x10th generation and at a loss to itself, safety is still more expensive.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 March 2014 07: 34
            +1
            You are confusing the price at which a product is sold with the cost of production. We are now talking about the cost price, it does not depend on the supply / demand curves
        3. Santa Fe
          21 March 2014 00: 59
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And why is Russian bigmac cheaper, Parshev did not tell? :)))

          DO NOT COMPARE catering and aviation
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          As much as the USA stands out for the same R&D, the KLA has never dreamed of.

          There and the corresponding result
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Is Mig-29K a meager avionics ?! :)))) Do you have an export version?

          Compare with the Superhornet
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 March 2014 07: 39
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            DO NOT COMPARE catering and aviation

            Yes, why would I not compare them? :)))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            There and the corresponding result

            I don’t see the result there at all.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Compare with the Superhornet

            YES please http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/f18ef.html
            The composition of the avionics is 90% similar to the avionics of the F / A-18C / D fighter. Since 1999, the inertial navigation system has been supplemented with a satellite navigation receiver. Since 2001, the fighter has been equipped with a Smits / Harris electronic map.
            The radio-electronic complex includes a multifunctional pulse-Doppler radar Hughes AN / APG-73 with a maximum detection range of fighter-class air targets of about 80 km. It is capable of tracking up to 10 targets "on the way" and simultaneously aiming at them four AMRAAM missiles with active radar homing. The station, equipped with a slotted antenna array with mechanical scanning in the horizontal plane and electronic scanning in the vertical plane, is a further development of the Hughes AN / APG-65 radar.

            Beetle-ME, even with SCHAR, and it will be better, I am generally silent about OLS. And the rest - Mig-29K is equipped with avionics of any company at the request of the customer :)
            1. Santa Fe
              21 March 2014 14: 14
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Yes, why would I not compare them? :)))

              1.Volumes transportation
              2.Distance - in the case of catering, the bulk of the transportation takes place within the city / area.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I don’t see the result there at all.

              Are you serious?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The composition of the avionics is 90% similar to the avionics of the F / A-18C / D fighter. Since 1999, the inertial navigation system has been supplemented with a satellite navigation receiver. Since 2001, the fighter has been equipped with a Smits / Harris electronic map.
              The electronic complex includes a multifunctional pulse-Doppler radar Hughes AN / APG-73

              Yes, this is some kind of nonsense. Or outdated data

              SuperX and Growlers equipped with APG-79 with AFAR
              Or you can recall the ATFLIR pendant sighting and navigation container

            2. Lazy
              Lazy 21 March 2014 23: 11
              0
              Guys, I'm sorry, but both are wrong. These are all incomparable things. And catering and aircraft construction. Firstly, the cost of a buffet in a McDuck will be determined by purchasing power in the region. Although the cost price in the USA will be slightly higher than ours. There are higher salaries, utilities and taxes. Those. all the delights of capitalism. In Europe it will be even more expensive, due to the high cost of the franchise and even greater other costs. In our country, even in spite of the cold winters, the communal housing still comes out much lower - so winter, to put it mildly, is not an argument. Secondly, McDonald's are small fast food outlets that work for their own money, but the creation of something large is done according to a completely different scheme, and here the picture will be the opposite. Easier to explain in construction. Does everyone know that developers are building a house using bank loans? Therefore, in Russia, apartments are much more expensive than in Western countries. What loans do we have and what do they have? Everything dances from the refinancing rate. Have you heard that our Central Bank raised the base rate from 5,5 to 7%? It's like they are fighting inflation. So this means that at this percentage, our main bank gives money to ALL other banks, i.e. accordingly, the smallest loan cannot be less than 7% per annum, minus risks and other nuances, consider the smallest possible loan - this is 8% per annum at the moment with us. In the USA and Europe, the refinancing rate is 0,25% (I repeat, we have 7!), I.e. there a loan is possible at 1% per annum, or even less !!! We have very expensive money! They print dollars and euros, and we earn! In this sense, they have a very big advantage. Our advantage is that CORRUPTION is LESS than that of the companies (!!!). References to WHAT kind of corruption in the military sphere yourself look for (well, everyone has probably heard about the big scandals with their B-2). White light has not seen such cuts yet! They are fighting with her of course. How can they. Or maybe not so much -) Even in China, where the death penalty for this case, they stole a lot and continue to do so. So our policy of financing "just barely enough" for big tasks in terms of cuts is very correct. It's just that people understand that there is nothing to cut from. Corruption is always where the big money is. This is the law! Here you have to count every penny and keep track of everything, which we are trying to do now. And in the USA, some knock out orders from others for unnecessary, but high-cost projects and everything is furnished as if there is a deadly need for this. And if we also have the Central Bank's base rate going down, then the prospects are very good, at the final price. I am one hundred percent sure, despite the fact that our ruble, to put it mildly, is weaker than the dollar, the cost of our aircraft will be MUCH lower than their counterparts.
      2. washi
        washi 20 March 2014 13: 24
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        MIG-29K is cheap compared to Raphael and F / A-18E only because of the scarcity of its avionics

        Sorry, but in all training battles our amer aircraft did. (on the Internet you will find)
        And this is more weight avionics, but the best quality.
        For the gifted.
        RADIOLAMPS MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO EMP.
        AFTER JAVA, ALL SEMICONDUCTORS DIE. (this is not only nuclear weapons, but also new weapons)
        Unfortunately, I do not see developers of radio tubes.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 20 March 2014 17: 36
          0
          Can you provide links?
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 20 March 2014 20: 54
        -2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The main problems of our KLA are the unprecedented embezzlement at all levels,

        Before American business acrobats, we still have to grow and grow. The modernization of each F-22 will cost the American taxpayer 16 million, after the adoption of the F-35, each previously issued aircraft will undergo modernization to the level accepted for service, modernization of the avionics V-1B will cost 12 million, etc. .. And this is a country which has debts to the ears.
        And what they have: F-35 was not very calculated according to a compromise, it was not blown out very much, the calculation of the electromagnetic effect is not very, the software works unstable. Well, the production culture is at a high level.
    4. Nayhas
      Nayhas 20 March 2014 12: 20
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      2) Manufacturing technology.

      KNAAZ and Irukut were refitted with the latest technology, they did not regret the money. But undoubtedly, the cost of the final product should include the cost of the purchased equipment and its maintenance, which is clearly carried out by the equipment developer.
      But nobody changed the equipment at NAPOiCH, they still work by the plasma-template method. A friend of mine worked there, did the Su-34. Received the parts after heat treatment and adjusted the hammers to the template ...
    5. washi
      washi 20 March 2014 13: 08
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Oleg, you are comparing aircraft sales prices. They - yes, in approximately similar machines will be approximately the same. Because the price is determined by supply and demand, and aircraft that solve approximately the same tasks for the buyer are approximately equivalent. But the selling price has nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing an airplane

      I do not agree. No one will trade at a loss.
      I am surprised by the Stalinist economy. This is genius.
      Now it is used, sometimes at the corporate level.
      And then the whole country was a huge corporation.
      Worked and state. and cooperative plants, factories and institutes. Those collective farms were in essence cooperatives.
      Khrushchev is a traitor.
      By the way, Beria is also a bad person. He focused on the national republics, which would lead to the collapse of the country.
      1. storog.cccp
        storog.cccp 20 March 2014 19: 56
        0
        I agree to 99%. -1% for Beria, crushing Georgian nationalism is worth a lot.
  • MolGro
    MolGro 20 March 2014 10: 50
    +6
    then there isn’t)) a targeting complex ppk for su 30.
    the rest can not read article g!
    1. Santa Fe
      20 March 2014 11: 40
      +3
      Quote: MolGro
      PPC sighting system for su 30.

      another dummy from the stand of the air show

      Where is the performance characteristics?
      How many sets did the troops receive? Practical use?
      And by the way, how much is the Su-30 in service with the Russian Federation?
      1. MolGro
        MolGro 20 March 2014 11: 47
        0
        are you a spy ?? can also give drawings ??
        divorced here trolls !!
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 20 March 2014 12: 03
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        another dummy from the stand of the air show

        This seems to be the container that the French from Tails are making for us. But this is called "joint production". If the French show us a dummy in connection with the events in the Crimea, then this model will really remain a model.
        1. Phoeniks
          Phoeniks 21 March 2014 10: 03
          0
          Then we will analyze and copy this layout.
      3. patsantre
        patsantre 20 March 2014 13: 18
        0
        I apologize, I wanted to put a plus, but clicked on the minus (
      4. supertiger21
        supertiger21 20 March 2014 16: 41
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Where is the TTX? How many kits did the troops receive? Practical application? And, by the way, how much is the Su-30 in service with the Russian Federation?


        But Russia is not alone in planning to operate the Su-30. Similar sighting systems can be exported, for example, to India, which has two dozen Su-30MKIs.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 20 March 2014 18: 38
          0
          Quote: supertiger21
          Similar sighting systems can be sold for export, for example, to India, which has two dozen Su-30MKI

          Hindus already use the Israeli container LITENING.
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 20 March 2014 18: 45
            +1
            Quote: Nayhas
            Hindus already use the Israeli container LITENING.


            yes Well, all the more so, I’m trying to say! Still, the Su-30 has the ability to carry hanging containers.
      5. Lone gunman
        Lone gunman 21 March 2014 00: 16
        0
        "Then a surprise" will be ... not long to wait.
    2. Lone gunman
      Lone gunman 21 March 2014 00: 19
      +1
      It also seems to me that the article was written by a student who had just returned "from an internship" from the United States.
      1. Roman 57 rus
        Roman 57 rus 21 March 2014 02: 44
        0
        Yeah, dvoechnik .....
  • sss5.papu
    sss5.papu 20 March 2014 11: 03
    0
    Well, at least a more or less objec- tive article appeared recognizing the backlog in avionics and radar.
    1. washi
      washi 20 March 2014 13: 28
      -1
      Quote: sss5.papu
      Well, at least a more or less objec- tive article appeared recognizing the backlog in avionics and radar.

      What is the backlog?
      All STELS technology is designed for a certain range of radiation.
      Amerovsky stations do not see their planes.
      Our OLD stations in Yugoslavia have seen EVERYTHING.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 20 March 2014 16: 01
        +5
        Quote: Vasya
        Our OLD stations in Yugoslavia have seen EVERYTHING.


        It is now widely believed that the old C-125 radar easily found the American stealth plane F-117, but this is a big mistake. The Serbs took advantage of the fact that the American flew over the same territory all the time without changing the route. his Philips thermal imager, when it flew extremely close and low to the position of the air defense system. Here it was mostly victory not technology, but tactics and strategy.
      2. patsantre
        patsantre 20 March 2014 18: 53
        +1
        And therefore, probably only one 117th was shot down during thousands of flights, and even that, flying constantly along one route and detected by optical means.
  • crambol
    crambol 20 March 2014 11: 13
    +2
    - lack of desire / need to create new production lines and update funds
    - corruption
    - management (UAC) would consider unjustified luxury the construction of a new plant for each new type of aircraft
    - Etc.


    From all this we can conclude that a certain group of "comrades" is waiting for the Am-sky occupation. Apparently their foreign contributions are working!
  • Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 20 March 2014 11: 15
    +1
    WBS - Work Breakdown Structure
    This is a work structure, not a functional diagram.
    1. Santa Fe
      20 March 2014 11: 40
      0
      Quote: Zerstorer
      WBS - Work Breakdown Structure
      This is a work structure, not a functional diagram.

      I won’t argue here
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 20 March 2014 11: 43
    +2
    I still do not understand what the article is about ...

    The distinguished author would like to wish to understand the terms "cost" and "price". Since he was talking about economics. Otherwise, it turns out to be sheer confusion. Based on the market PRICE of the product, it is NOT possible to estimate the COST. At least until the seller declares a NET PROFIT from the transaction.

    If the US and the Russian Federation sell the aircraft at 100 million, this only means that the BUYER considers such a price acceptable in the current situation of supply and demand. Think for yourself if, for example, the United States receives 20 million profit from the transaction, and the Russian Federation 25 whose plane has a higher cost?

    The leadership of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) would consider it unreasonable luxury to build a new plant for each new type of aircraft ... Assembling 10-20 fighters a year is easier to master in pieces, in production facilities left over from Soviet times - only partially replacing equipment and tools .


    And how can this affect the cost of the car? If she is in the series?

    The myth of the unjustified high cost of the B-2 does not stand up to meeting real facts.


    Not the cost, but again the price. And this is not a myth at all. It really costs that much. And he really doesn't justify its price. Since in real combat operations it is practically not used. No myths. View statistics on the distribution of combat missions by type of aircraft during the war with Iraq. Everything is clear.

    The final stage of the tragicomedy is the “life cycle cost” - the cost of the entire life cycle of the system. Production costs, R&D costs, modernization, spare parts, fuel, training and maintenance of pilots, utilization at the end of their life.


    I don’t see anything comical here. This is a very good indicator. Firstly, it gives an understanding of the degree of readiness of the machine when leaving the conveyor. Agree, when, without completing a single combat mission, the billionth bomber, a couple of years after leaving the assembly line, gets up for modernization at the cost of millions of dollars - this raises some questions.
    Secondly, this indicator makes it possible to assess the appropriateness of the whole project as a whole. For example, if we have a missile cruiser that has completed 10 combat operations and a super-bomber has not completed a single one, but their life cycle cost is identical, then maybe you need to invest in missile cruisers?
    1. Santa Fe
      20 March 2014 12: 58
      +1
      Quote: abc_alex
      And he really doesn’t justify his price, since he is practically not used in real military operations.

      In the same way, it is possible to prove the futility of any Su-27 or C-300
      1. storog.cccp
        storog.cccp 20 March 2014 20: 11
        0
        Su-27, S-300 by the very fact of their existence prove their usefulness. Their effectiveness has been proven by time, which can not be said about V-2, it was possible to frighten the Papuans, than simpler.
  • dagpapik
    dagpapik 20 March 2014 11: 51
    +1
    Oleg, you yourself were flying or taking everything from the ceiling. Have you checked every plane and where did you get such data
  • dagpapik
    dagpapik 20 March 2014 11: 55
    0
    I wanted to add another question Oleg. But in general, do you even know how the combat complex works, at least Su 24
  • dagpapik
    dagpapik 20 March 2014 11: 59
    0
    Clever people sit and slurp the topic of how good we are or bad. At least one of you kept the devil by the horns?
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 20 March 2014 12: 16
    0
    There is always limited ammunition on board. Let's say 10 air-to-air missiles. Let's say the plane is worth 100 million. We launch 12 drones against it with two missiles on each. If the drone costs less than 10 million, and the missiles on it are two times cheaper than aircraft, then the operation is profitable. The plane hits 10 drones, 2x2 = 4 missiles remain, this is a guaranteed defeat. This is if you count the war in money. And so it will be, the hot phase of the Third World War has all the signs of a war, primarily an economic one.
    1. tomket
      tomket 20 March 2014 22: 45
      0
      but nothing that the leading slave with 10 missiles flies?)))))))
  • spirit
    spirit 20 March 2014 13: 10
    +2
    Interesting article +
    You are all laughing at B2. And you have to cry over

    a relatively low level of remuneration for specialists in the aviation industry compared with their European and overseas counterparts;

    And so in all high-tech industries. Misters managers should think. Since it will be impossible to grab a piece from sale, due to the lack of the product itself (who will do it for a spear?)
    If the cost of our planes increases by 20-30 million, due to a SERIOUS increase in the salaries of industry workers, I would not mind. But in the modern realities of Russia this is impossible because it is too tidbit to cut.
  • patsantre
    patsantre 20 March 2014 13: 23
    0
    Kaptsov’s articles are recognized literally from the first sentence. Even with the name. It is always interesting to read them, and they are written correctly, everything is reasoned, although sometimes it is somehow one-sided. But this time, the author, although he did not give answers to specific questions, well dotted i. At least now there will be something to shut up the screamers, vehemently declaring that foreign cars are not better, but many times more expensive.
    1. PLO
      PLO 20 March 2014 18: 56
      +2
      At least now there will be something to shut up the screamers


      you won’t succeed again)
      the article is based solely on assumptions of varying degrees of doubtfulness
  • typhoon7
    typhoon7 20 March 2014 13: 43
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    This is Mig-29K meager avionics ?! :)))) Have an export version ?! :))))) Oleg, well, you give :))

    Totally agree with you. India today is not the country that will buy aircraft with weak avionics, the competition is great.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 20 March 2014 17: 38
      0
      Read the news about India, on this site, they will save money here and there so that they fly in the head and Indian friends redirect us with excuses.
    2. tomket
      tomket 20 March 2014 22: 46
      +1
      from that they can’t really buy Rafali
  • Peacemaker
    Peacemaker 20 March 2014 14: 09
    +2

    Modern aviation - extremely expensive thing. And high-quality aviation systems are even more expensive.

    Gene tell me, how much is the bomb? Well Cheburashka ... probably a hundred rubles! Look how wealth is flying at us! ! !
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 20 March 2014 16: 00
    +2
    You cannot compare the incomparable. Of course, if Russian specialists pay in vain a fee that is several times lower in vain than the fees of foreign specialists, then the final cost of the products will seriously differ. In this regard, the cheapest Chinese equipment. As for electronic equipment, the Russian defense industry needs to try very hard to catch up with the US military-industrial complex.
  • sss5.papu
    sss5.papu 20 March 2014 16: 27
    0
    Quote: Vasya
    Quote: sss5.papu
    Well, at least a more or less objec- tive article appeared recognizing the backlog in avionics and radar.

    What is the backlog?
    All STELS technology is designed for a certain range of radiation.
    Amerovsky stations do not see their planes.
    Our OLD stations in Yugoslavia have seen EVERYTHING.

    Well, Vasya!
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 20 March 2014 16: 27
    0
    And once again I put + an article. Kaptsov often talks about facts that are difficult to find on the wiki from other sources, and now I learned some previously unknown things.
    With the F-35A, the Americans cleverly acted, planning to sell it for a relatively low price of $ 80 million. The similar price is most likely associated with the number of aircraft manufactured. only two countries, and the second one is not exported at all (for now). Their number will also be less than that of the basic version A for the US Air Force and another 35 countries.
    In the article about the data about the MiG-29K, I was a little surprised. For example, I did not have information that they would not install the UVT. There are also rumors that not all MiG-35s (if it will be built) will be equipped with such a device. the bundle will need to be given up to $ 70 per unit, which is similar to the price of the American Super Hornet. Yes, and until the 35th AFAR has been installed, it currently remains the prototype MiG-29M2 even in the prototype. Currently, until this machine arrives, simpler MiG-29SMT will be purchased.
    1. tomket
      tomket 20 March 2014 22: 47
      0
      found where to look, in WIKI ..... what is called, without comments ....
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 21 March 2014 16: 12
        0
        Quote: tomket
        found where to look, in WIKI


        Actually, on the contrary, he said that VIKI usually doesn’t have all the info, so I prefer to run around different sources.

        Quote: tomket
        as they say, without comments


        Please explain! There is no word on the topic in your comment.
        1. Santa Fe
          21 March 2014 16: 48
          0
          Quote: supertiger21
          Actually, on the contrary, he said that VIKI usually doesn’t have all the info, so I prefer to run around different sources.

          VIKA is generally normal. a resource, but for some reason there is a strong tradition of despising it

          The main points of the accusation: a free encyclopedia is biased, articles can be written by anyone (usually a Russophobe), insufficient information is provided on many topics, etc.

          But Vika thought so - as an encyclopedia, where you can quickly get basic information on any issue: key concepts, events, dates. The rest is to be found already in specialized sources

          Links are used for quality control - feel free to check them out

          And, frankly, the Russian-speaking part of Wiki is poorly developed - compared to other world languages. But everything is ahead!
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 21 March 2014 18: 34
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            VIKA is generally normal. a resource, but for some reason there is a strong tradition of despising it The main points of the accusation: a free encyclopedia is biased, articles can be written by any person (usually a Russophobe), insufficient information is provided on many topics, etc.


            Mostly I agree. It's just that you can’t always find the necessary info in it. not everything has an article. By the way, the meaning of Wiki articles practically changes from the language section. A person writing an article first of all makes a certain bias in favor of his region (country), which often leads to some subjectivity of the material.
  • russkijbelarus
    russkijbelarus 20 March 2014 17: 11
    0
    Question from the Armenian radio:
    Obama:
    - Mr. President, what do you need to destroy Russia?
    “Well, you know, you must first divide the territories, as the Romans said ... Then finance democracy.” Freeze bills of businessmen. Fund national elements. Then everything is simple: no-fly zone, peacekeeping contingent. Plant a loyal government, create mass cells ...
    - Thank you.
    To Putin:
    - Vladimir Vladimirovich, what do you need to destroy the United States?
    - Thank. Where is it...?
  • Bryanskiy_Volk
    Bryanskiy_Volk 20 March 2014 17: 33
    +1
    The main idea is not clear from the article. There was a slight perplexity - what it was: whether the pricing analysis for modern aircraft, a comparison of the characteristics of avionics of domestic and foreign production, or another attempt to discredit our entire aviation industry.
    As a regular reader of this site, I’m just wondering in which industry the author of these publications is a specialist (Oleg Kaptsov). I do not want to offend anyone, but with what is the author's competence in technical and economic aspects supported? request
  • vvp2412
    vvp2412 20 March 2014 17: 41
    -1
    Comrade tried to whitewash B-2. But he didn’t mention that this wunderwaffle can carry only freely falling bombs. Well, what's the point of him? The same thing about the B1B-Lancer.

    The cost of an ogram, the airplane itself is interesting, but its application, as with the F-22, is not.
    The point is what to drive the B-2 across the ocean from the USA to Afghanistan to bomb the spirits?
    The attack aircraft from the base in Afghanistan will cope better and cheaper
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 20 March 2014 19: 02
      +1
      They have free-falling bombs flying beyond some of our missiles.
      And what about the AGM-158, too, in your opinion?
      1. PLO
        PLO 20 March 2014 19: 08
        +1
        They have free-falling bombs flying beyond some of our missiles.

        do not fly, but plan)
      2. supertiger21
        supertiger21 20 March 2014 21: 05
        +2
        Quote: patsantre
        They have free-falling bombs flying beyond some of our missiles.


        The very word FREE-FALLING and says otherwise. A bomb is still a bomb, it cannot be pulled along the radius with an air-to-surface missile.
      3. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 21 March 2014 16: 49
        0
        Quote: patsantre
        They have free-falling bombs flying beyond some of our missiles.

        You probably meant planning bombs.
        Technical specification GBU-39
        -Mass - 129 kg
        - Caliber - 250 pounds
        - Weight - 130 kg
        -Light range - 110 km
        - Accuracy of hit - 5-8 meters
        - Object of defeat - with precisely known coordinates.
  • PLO
    PLO 20 March 2014 18: 47
    +2
    Kaptsov, as usual, distorted everything that is possible

    H035 does not have a mechanical scan, there is a full-fledged AFAR, and an electromechanical drive is needed to increase effective viewing angles, the same scheme is used in H036 radars with AFAR for PAK FA

    not to mention the fact that it is reliably known that H036 was installed starting from the third prototype, i.e. on the T-50-3, T-50-4, T-50-5
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 20 March 2014 23: 19
      -1
      He probably meant the entire radar complex, along with side-view radars.
  • Takashi
    Takashi 20 March 2014 19: 54
    +1
    The cost of military vehicles in Russia is clearly overstated and overvalued by 2-3 times.
    Prices for the production of parts for military aircraft increase by 2-3 times (if not 4), and parts for civil aircraft (which is produced in the same workshop) are lower at cost (although they are also overpriced, but not as godless as for the military).
    The logic is simple - since the equipment is military, it means the state will buy it, but the state doesn’t care at what price to take it - it’s for the country's defense capability !!!!
    Then off we go, the cost of R&D is also overestimated (using the expression "for defense, the state will pay for everything") ...
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    As for the re-equipment of the Knaapo and Iruk factories, it was carried out so ingeniously that you can only give a prize to the person who invented this fraud.
    The bottom line is simple, the fact is that foreign equipment manufacturers will not sell you machines for the production of military products for any money. But with pleasure they will sell it to you if you intend to stamp the citizen's products (and they will also take from you a promise (oath) that you will not make military products). But the promise, this applies only on the lines of the leasing contract or for the duration of the warranty service. And after that, you can do what you want. :) :)
  • tomket
    tomket 20 March 2014 23: 04
    0
    Article minus, apparently Oleg discovered the situation with the fleet in the 20-30 years of the last century, and decided to broadcast the Washington agreement on aviation. Firstly, what I did not see in the article was the percentage of profit that the corporation receives from the sale of the same f-16. Really Oleg decided that they give the planes out of kindness at the cost price? At least a third of the price tag is the corporation’s profit, if you do not take into account all kinds of kickbacks, which made the American military-industrial complex particularly famous. In our situation, I think the situation is not better than our colleagues in the ocean. In addition, in fact, due to a significant reduction in aircraft production, corporations are forced to earn their living by endless services and maintenance of the fleet of those very new products in the form of the Raptors and B-2, and the lack of knowledge of the f-35 program is something other than making a living for yourself . I think it’s not a secret to anyone that in modern models, whether it’s a car, whether it’s a refrigerator, the planned wear and tear is introduced. Given the constant problems, now with the raptor, then with f-35, such innovations penetrated aviation as well, at least in the West.
  • sasha127
    sasha127 21 March 2014 06: 24
    0
    The article is interesting. But I want to correct the author, regarding his statement that the Russian Air Force does not have an aircraft equipped with a FAR radar. This is not so, Russia has an aircraft that has been equipped with such a radar for a long time and it was much earlier than the Americans, it is a Mig-31 with a phased antenna grip high power (the diameter of the antenna mounted motionless, 1,1 m). Moreover, such a radar was installed on our Mig-31 when the Americans were just developing for their F-22. The Mig-31m has been equipped with such radar since 1986.
    1. Santa Fe
      21 March 2014 14: 36
      0
      Quote: sasha127
      no aircraft equipped with headlamp radar

      passive PAR and active PAR
      two different technologies

      Each AFAR element is a separate transmitter
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 21 March 2014 15: 45
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Each AFAR element is a separate transmitter


        Oleg, I ask you to say as a specialist. What are the significant advantages of the Active PAR over the Passive that will come in handy in battle?
        1. Santa Fe
          21 March 2014 16: 36
          +1
          Quote: supertiger21
          you as a specialist

          as a "specialist"
          Quote: supertiger21
          . What are the significant advantages of the Active Headlamp over the Passive, which are useful in battle?

          The mass of the radar is less than 1% of the take-off mass, but it is this device that largely determines the combat capabilities of the aircraft. Radar with AFAR has a number of important advantages:

          - modules can simultaneously work at different frequencies!

          - smaller weight dimensions of the AFAR (note how small the nose of the F-35 is compared to Sushki and Migami);

          - high sensitivity and resolution, the ability to work in the "magnifying glass" mode (ideal for work "on the ground");

          - in view of the large number of transmitters, the AFAR has a wide range of angles by which rays can be deflected - many of the limitations of the geometry of the arrays inherent in the AFAR are removed;

          - AFAR is considered more reliable: failure / damage of one element will not lead to failure of the entire radar (however, the complex cooling system of thousands of AFAR modules largely eliminates this advantage)

          - The high transmitting power of the AFAR allows you to integrate it into a communication and data exchange system!
          In the 2007 year, tests by Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and L-3 Communications allowed the Raptor AFAR system to act as a Wi-Fi access point capable of transmitting data to 548 megabits per second and receiving at a gigabit speed, which is 500 times faster than in NATO Standard Link Link 16

          Disadvantages of AFAR:

          - COST !!!

          - strong radiation scattering, low efficiency, modest dimensions and aperture (antenna dimensions), therefore, objectively AFAR is inferior to VFAR in terms of detection of air targets (although it has better clarity / resolution at medium and small distances).
          1. supertiger21
            supertiger21 21 March 2014 18: 48
            0
            Thanks for the answer, I will consider yes !

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            - modules can simultaneously work at different frequencies!
            - smaller weight dimensions of the AFAR (note how small the nose of the F-35 is compared to Sushki and Migami);
            - high sensitivity and resolution, the ability to work in the "magnifying glass" mode (ideal for work "on the ground");
            - due to the large number of transmitters, the AFAR has a wide range of angles by which rays can be deflected
            - removes many of the limitations of the geometry of the lattices inherent in VFAR;
            - AFAR is considered more reliable: failure / damage of one element will not lead to failure of the entire radar (however, the complex cooling system of thousands of AFAR modules largely eliminates this advantage)
            - AFAR’s high transmitting ability allows it to be integrated into a communication and data exchange system! In 2007, tests by Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and L-3 Communications allowed the Raptor AFAR system to act as a Wi-Fi access point capable of transmitting data at 548 megabits per second and receive at a gigabit speed, which is 500 times faster than the standard NATO Link 16


            I think that this is enough to boldly declare the advantage of an active headlamp over a passive one.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            - COST !!!


            Perhaps this is one of the reasons why only Yankee AFAR fighters stand in large numbers. Among fighters of other countries, as far as I know, it has been put in serial production in French Rafal (since 2012).

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            - strong radiation scattering, low efficiency, modest dimensions and aperture (antenna dimensions), therefore, objectively AFAR is inferior to VFAR in terms of detection of air targets (although it has better clarity / resolution at medium and small distances).


            I also drew attention to this. The F-22 and F-35 radars, although they are more modern, have a shorter range than the Su-35S radar. Maybe this is the reason - the small size of the American radar with AFAR (as you mentioned above), compared to Sukhovsky " Irbis. "This is probably one of the reasons why the Yankees abandoned the long-range AIM-54 Phoenix missiles.
  • supertiger21
    supertiger21 21 March 2014 18: 59
    0
    By the way, Oleg, I would like to ask you. What are the prospects for the development of optical-location systems? Perhaps in the future they will play one of the most important roles in battle. Even the famous F-117, shot down by the Serbs, was not detected by radar, but by OLS. It is thermal radiation and issued "Nighthawk", during the next combat mission. Are these systems important in battle as well as radar?
    1. Santa Fe
      21 March 2014 20: 43
      +1
      Quote: supertiger21
      What are the prospects for the development of optical location systems?

      I did not have to fly military aircraft. The only thing I can say as a person who is interested in aviation is that various thermal imagers and OLSs have one important advantage: they allow you to collect information in a passive mode, without giving out the plane itself with any radiation

      This fact is of particular importance with the development of stealth technology and stealth - the same F-117 was forced to turn off even the radio altimeter in "stealth mode". In this case, the only hope for thermal imagers

      The second obvious circumstance is OLS and thermal imager see what the radar does not see... Additional range - additional possibilities! Notice the coals of an extinct fire (this trick was mastered back in the 80s - the Vyuga reconnaissance container for the Su-17 was suspended by the suspension, was used in Afghanistan) Or detect the positions of the cannon anti-aircraft artillery. Consider the torch of a ballistic missile taking off at a range inaccessible to conventional radar (1000+ km)


      The image with LANTIRN is displayed on the ILS F-16

      Finally, the third - sensors can be placed anywhere in the planeproviding the pilot with an all-round view (just such a system stands on the F-35 - six AN / AAQ-37 DAS sensors)

      As a result, such systems have gained widespread use: overhead LITENING, AFLIR, LANTIRN (Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night - a system of two outboard sighting and navigation containers for PMV operations at night), etc.

      And here are ours - the built-in Hephaestus on the modernized Su-24
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 21 March 2014 21: 05
        0
        Thank you Oleg for enlightening, thanks for this info too smile !
  • prorab_ak
    prorab_ak 21 March 2014 21: 54
    0
    Quote: patsantre
    So I did not even say a word about our aircraft being worse. But screaming that they will "do at once" American, even not so, screaming that they DO ONCE them, is the height of idiocy.
    Quote: supertiger21
    . Remember the air battles F-4 and MiG-21

    We are talking about modern aircraft, since that time a lot of water has flowed under the bridge, but I'm not saying that maneuverability is unnecessary! These clowns just freeze me. In yesterday's article, one of these gave out a pearl "Virginia Borey is not good enough" without even bothering to at least superficially study these nuclear submarines, even without taking into account the fact that the ships are somehow different in tasks and there is no point in comparing them.
    And such woodpeckers here are almost half the audience. At the time, at least do not read comments (

    good
  • CAPILATUS
    CAPILATUS 22 March 2014 00: 38
    0
    Oleg, with all due respect to you, do not write more such articles. This is not yours.
    After reading an article you read, there are more questions than answers.
    But it cannot be otherwise in equations with several unknowns, you missed a few in my opinion.
    I think the price of a combat unit such as an airplane is formed from the following:
    - the cost of the loan for production (interest rates, conditions, etc.)
    - the actual cost of production (development of production, quantity produced, changes in the market for prices of materials, etc.)
    - the cost of depreciation of both production capacities and the final product
    - advertising (including the use of the final product on a real theater)
    - operational characteristics (fuel consumption, component life cycle, etc.)
    - the political component of sales (to put it bluntly, to whom can you sell for a high price, since they will not buy from others, but to whom they will not)
    1. Santa Fe
      22 March 2014 01: 38
      0
      Quote: CAPILATUS
      - the cost of the loan for production (interest rates, conditions, etc.)

      1. It is unlikely that this is true for the KLA sweetly living at the expense of the State. defense of the order (by the way to the question of cut)
      2. If aircraft manufacturers took a loan - this will have a greater impact on the cost of domestic aircraft. Russian banks take loans in the West at a low interest rate - and issue loans to the domestic at a higher interest rate.
      Credit in Russia =
      Quote: CAPILATUS
      - the actual cost of production (development of production, quantity produced, changes in the market for prices of materials, etc.)

      Ours will be higher due to small-scale, piece production
      Quote: CAPILATUS
      - depreciation value as production capacities

      Everything is in the procurement cost
      Quote: CAPILATUS
      so the final product

      Life cycle cost
      Quote: CAPILATUS
      - advertising (including the use of the final product on a real theater)

      Has a raptor ever been used in battle?
      Quote: CAPILATUS
      - the political component of sales (to put it bluntly, to whom can you sell for a high price, since they will not buy from others, but to whom they will not)

      Not quite as you described

      The Shatotovites have their own circle of customers who under no circumstances will buy Russian weapons

      On the other hand, there are a number of countries - "friends of Russia" to which no one will sell weapons except Russia - as a rule, these rogues are not able to pay for supplies and weapons are delivered on an unpaid loan (which will be quietly written off in 15-20 years) Examples - Syria, Venezuela

      The third group - countries purchasing any equipment. Like India. And then fierce competition begins between our and Western models of technology. In this case, cost is one of the decisive factors.
    2. postman
      postman 22 March 2014 17: 55
      0
      Quote: CAPILATUS
      I think the price of a combat unit such as an airplane is formed from the following:

      You write about the cost price, not the selling price.
      Note: go to the sony website (for example, or something else): USA, Canada, Europe (from England to Spain) and Russia.
      everything will become clear right away. The cost essno affects the selling price, but not 100%
      ==============================
  • postman
    postman 22 March 2014 06: 11
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    We are talking about the incredible B-2 Spirit bomber, whose life cycle cost exceeded $ 2 billion in prices 17 years ago!

    here such a thing ... you will be surprised: a terrible problem - there is nothing and no one to produce spare parts. like this: the delights of the "unplanned economy"
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    This concept includes not only fuel consumption and standard hours of after-flight maintenance, but also the costs of creating an airplane

    Well, you’re wrong (who made such a mistake?)!
    isho recycling fee included in the cost of flight hours ....
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    ultimately, there may be a spread of data from 15 to 40 thousand dollars for one hour of flight,

    Answer:
    1. The correspondent was an idiot
    2.Europe, despite the unity of the patchwork: for the Eurofighter, the cost in England and Italy (the hour will be different), as an example:
    W8 maximum in the usa, in england and germany, well, and in Russia, for comparison: $ 150, 100GBR, 200 eur, $ 300
    (well, or for Sony products for example).
    You won’t get a clear explanation.
    3. from that and the scatter
  • Tishka
    Tishka 10 March 2015 17: 29
    0
    From the article I made one conclusion, our top managers are not interested in building new production facilities, but are concerned about one thing, fill their pockets! And why, the Ministry of Defense will buy at a frenzied price, even if not 100 aircraft, but only 10, but the price of 10 will be equal to the cost of a hundred! So all is well lovely marquise and things are going well! This trend can be traced not only in aviation, but also in all other areas of our life, why produce more, if it is easier to raise the price, what they have produced will still be bought! As with the Armata tank, it doesn't matter that its cost is astronomical, and they will buy 10 for the parade, and we will fight on what was left of the USSR when thousands were built.