Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

outlaw162 wrote:

I'll search thru the links for the equivalent forum contributors, "SU-35guy" or "Gumski".

Now THAT is funny!!! LMAO

F-16.net Sponsor

Hey I think I resemble that remarkski.

Quote:

Unofficial sources say that chief constructors of Sukhoi were shocked in Farnborough last year when they saw an exhibitional flight of F-22A Raptor, as some experts noticed that Raptor's supermaneuvers with the use of thrust vectoring are somewhat of "more clear and stable" than their promoted SU-30 MKI's.

Shocking they're shocked.

They might be more shocked when they learn that the Raptor Demo is actually very basic. Max, now Zeke, aren't performing anything that isn't done by the Raptor community for years, and he's certainly not going to perform any advanced aerial maneuvers the F-22 is capable of anytime soon.

SU-35 cost $45 million to $65 million.
F-35 cost $150 million.(TBC)
this means that there can be 2-3 SU-35's to one F-35
I hope more than anything the f-35 doesn't end up like the ardvark,but every four star general is trying to avoid that
-USAF all the way

this may sound like a conspiracy theory, and i could be wrong,but does anyone else not think that Lockheed martin knew the price would increase dramatically and were desperate to have a repeat of the success of the F-16?

The JPO tracks the cost, both current and projected, of the F-35 down to the individual part. They play an active roll it it's future estimation and don't just sit by and "politely ask LM" for a number.

BTW, the FY2010 F-35A only had a REC Flyaway cost of $128 million. This was only the 4th year of LRIP production. By the time it hits FRP, it should be below the $80 million area.

In the future, try not to trust in wiki as a sole source.

irshlad321 wrote:

SU-35 cost $45 million to $65 million.
F-35 cost $150 million.(TBC)
this means that there can be 2-3 SU-35's to one F-35
I hope more than anything the f-35 doesn't end up like the ardvark,but every four star general is trying to avoid that
-USAF all the way

irshlad,

The Total Unit Procurement Cost for a fully equipped and mature Su-35S will be much more than the widely proliferated $45-65m confusion. That number is likely the cost estimate in 2006 dollars or some such bygone year and forwhat is described as a Total flyaway unit cost.

Factor in inflation and cost of technology growth, labor, materials, etc,.. Su-35S's Total Procurement Unit Cost will be much more than that - my guess would be somewhere in line with Rafale's or a Typhoon's T3 Total unit Procurement cost. (Now factor in a Natural Gas resource exploitation deal as part of the calculated offset, and the price could see some wiggle room, sure).

As far as modern armed Su-35S's capabilities are concerned, as well as it's upgradeable growth potential go, it's no doubt a very dangerous and next-gen threat to whomever it would be waved at. It does appear to at least have potential for various asymmetrical capabilities either matching, or even out-matching a future block III F-35 and countering the current F-22 mod. imho.

We do not know the end result of Su-35S total Procurement Unit Cost as of yet..
There are some signals pointing twards another batch beeing ordered once the initial batch is delivered..
IF VVS get another 48 units, the total F-35S Procurement Unit Cost will drop even lower, making it redicules cheap compair to other products in the same class and function(F-15SE?)..

geogen wrote:

irshlad,

As far as modern armed Su-35S's capabilities are concerned, as well as it's upgradeable growth potential go, it's no doubt a very dangerous and next-gen threat to whomever it would be waved at. It does appear to at least have potential for various asymmetrical capabilities either matching, or even out-matching a future block III F-35 and countering the current F-22 mod. imho.

It is a capable aircraft no doubt, but being even less stealthy than Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen NG, Super Hornet. So....this means that it will always be disadvantaged against both active and passive sensors. Against 4th Gen aircraft, it will be nothing to sneeze at. Against VLO aircraft, it will have its work cut out, to survive the BVR engagements, so that it can get close enough to return fire.

The idea that a T-10 series can compete with the F-22 is patently absurd and shows that the people making that claim have no idea how the F-22 is used.

shingen - that is a valid claim, sure... albeit based on the the scenario of F-22 being fully matured and upgraded to the originally envisioned future 5th gen increment capabilities and in some of the originally required numbers (of 270+). And it should be remembered, that the F-22 was conceived of and sold as a future, dominant, multi-mission platform for a 20+ operational lifespan and as such was more likely planned to be upgraded along the way in it's longer-term procurement. It wasn't conceived, developed, nor procured initially to be thrusted into the position it is now.

haavarla -

Thanks for interesting responses always, sir. On costs issues alone - I have to be skeptical of a so-called 'cheap, fully equipped Su-35S' marketing hype as much as one can confuse the projected cheap F-35 procurement.

And those regularly commented 'cheap Su-35' price quotes are for one thing old, maybe from 2006 (as much has changed since then, dollar value wise)... and as said, likely to be for something similar to a total Flyaway Cost - NOT a typically quoted, so-called Total Procurement Unit Cost (i.e., a package unit price to get the aircraft operational and flying once delivered). My guess is that a fully equipped (full avionics, self-protection, EW, weapons integration and engine upgrade) would come in actually higher than EF Typhoon (at market price). At best it could be in the same range, which could come in priced slightly better than an F-15SA class equipped F-15E+. However, this future (mature Su-35S) Total unit procurement price would most likely be more than a future, upgraded Super Hornet.

What will be a definite killer however, on any such 'Heavy' strategic type Tac fighter (e.g. F-15E+, SU-35S, F-22, SU-34), will be its operational and Lifecycle sustainment costs. Even with superior aerodynamics of Sukhoi aircraft designs, the big engines will suck a chunk of gas per sortie, as will the total aircraft airframe and multitude of high-tech 'systems' equipping the aircraft beget no such thing as 'cheap' Life cycle costs. imho.

Last edited by haavarla on Apr 19, 2011 - 06:22 PM; edited 1 time in total

Well, we do not know what package the Su-35S will include.
What kind of weapons and EW equipment..
But the platform alone is cheaper than a new build F-15C/F-15SE.
Albeit such compairson is always difficult to do, due to different systems in the airforces.

On the service cost, for the VVS, its not that 'expensive' sinse the VVS have fielded Flankers in ages. They have all the support ready for any new build Su-35S.

As your fuel cost are conserned, yes the Su-35S has two huge engines, but the fuel consumption on those AL-31F series is not that bad, atleast on mil power..
Anyway, take a look at the big picture here..
all units like the Flankers, Mig-31 and Su-34 has an outstanding fuel capasity and i dare say in a way they actualy save a lot of service cost this way.
Take a look at the VVS tanker capasity, its a joke!
But hey, RuAF can obviously manage without a huge tanker fleet.
Maintaining a huge tanker fleet for a large airforce like VVS is no small deal. It is quite costly..
Yet they can operate without huge tanker fleet, atleast in a defensive role.

As for fuel cost, i think the biggest challange is the RuAF bomber fleet, which soak up most of the tanker capasity.

double post..

irshlad321 wrote:

SU-35 cost $45 million to $65 million.
F-35 cost $150 million.(TBC)
this means that there can be 2-3 SU-35's to one F-35
I hope more than anything the f-35 doesn't end up like the ardvark,but every four star general is trying to avoid that
-USAF all the way

Even at 1/3 the cost of an F-35, it's unlikely that most (if any) countries will be able the match the U.S. in overall numbers or capability anytime soon.

As for the F-35/F-22 themselves I've got nothing except silly "woulda-coulda-shoulda" ideas that I've already vented on other threads. Sad

OK, thanks for that insight Haavarla and I agree its probably a big advantage for modern tactical aircraft to have fuel capacities which give them tanker-autonomy for the most part (> 4hour unrefueled flights is a game-changer imho).

But my main point from the post above however is that the often stated $45-65m Su-35S unit price is likely listed from a 2006 era Total flyaway type cost estimate. (and not a total unit procurement cost). Furthermore, the noted $150m F-35 unit price could be a price for who knows what... either an F-35A Totaly flyaway cost from 2008-2009, or a weapon system cost for 2011, or... ?? Just saying the price quotes which are sometimes stated between these aircraft truly can't be compared as such, as they are not specified in detail as to what they are pricing and how an actually compared future buy would price. imho. Respects-

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

SU-35... does it match up with F-22/F-35?