And a price tag rivaling the one of the Raptor…

Seahawk got it, PGM´s launched from the ground.

Cheers

100% agreed – we have seen the crucial importance of high speed – high precision direct + indirect fire support (barrelled and MRBL) for CAS / COIN in especially mountaneous terrain.

But how about overseas / long range operations, maybe multinational ones, which is the rising trend?

What if Libya had a more decent air force to at least pose a more serious threat to coalition air power – AND no neighbour country permitted ground based PGM’s to be based near the border?

I have heard that Pakistan has recently acquired the T-37 Tweet’s which Turkish Air Force had replaced with KT-1T’s a while ago, probably to use as spare parts.

Any info on this?

Really?
So NAPO was not modernized, and is not serially producing Su-34?
KNAAZ is not making the Su-35?
Irkut the Su-30SM and Yak? Just sticking with AF items here, since I am scared to even go into other areas with you.

You are making generalized and sometimes incorrect assumptions on Soviet Strategy, to create an even more speculative, inaccurate, and generalized picture of Russian plane procurement today.
This is why people are rolling their eyes at you.

Dear TR1,

Look, I don’t want to seem like an annoying armchair strategist -and I guess it is so already- but as a guy who tries to closely watch Russian defence industry, I beg to differ. I have no problems people “roll eyes on me” nor I am immune to making mistakes, but I see the picture slightly different.

Yes, I am not denying the performance and production of these aircraft. But I am focusing here on serial production capacity, lifecycle management, logistics and support. Their strategy maybe was good for Cold War era but not for today, hence no comleted transformation. What is the production status of Su-35, for example? Designing and producing a prototype or LSP aircraft is one thing but maintaining a good lifecycle support system is another. How many Su-35 are in service now? Entered service when? What is the planned service entry for new airframes per year versus accomplished figures?

The 2011 – 2020 procurement plan oversaw a total of USD640bil to be spent, to raise the percentage of modern (new production) aircraft in inventory from 10% to somewhere around 70. However the economy minister last month stated that this plan will take serious revision and delays, since the industry is not capable of meeting orders plus financial constrains on state budget. Look at the Bombardier and Agusta Westland local co-production deals, or Eurocopter slowly and silently “invading” the country with its support network or European engines for Kamov etc. Not to mention the deals with Germany, France and Israel in sensors, electronics, UAV etc. The Rus aviation sector has not been very succesful on performing a reform in terms of cost – effectiveness (Note the emphasis by Putin on service/maintenance issues: http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/5086) The industry has not been able to modernize itself, which resulted in less capability to meet orders in time, provide seamless lifecycle support, logistics and system/subsystem service life. The overall system was good for the strategy and conditions before, but not today.

In terms of system/subsystem performance, Su-34 is a very impressive aircraft, but from a PLM perspective I see it as one of the last members of the previous era.

Your point was based on wrong assumptions and wrong facts. Hence you have no point til you base it on correct facts.

From Jane’s Aero Engines, AL-31 entry:

AL-31F

First production engine, fitted with afterburner and matched to the Sukhoi Su-27. Data as in description below. Izdeliye (product designation) 99. Service designation R-32, reported to the FAI as the power plant of the P-42 (modified Su-27 prototype), which set 32 time-to-height records in 1986. The AL-31F entered production in late 1981 and received final qualification in 1985. By 1993 about 1,500 had been delivered from MMPP Salyut and UMPO Ufa. In 1990 the TBO was established at 900 hours, with a hot-section inspection at 300-hour intervals, but it has since been raised to the 1,000-hour level of the AL-31FP. According to Salyut (which see under that name) the immediate objective is to combine the increased thrust ratings with a TBO of 1,000 hours and ‘expected life’ of 2,000 hours. However, as noted in the Saturn introduction, Salyut is tasked only with mass production, and has no remit to interfere in the design process. By 2006 the number of active engines with the Russian Air Force had fallen to about 700, some of which are being overhauled for the Russian Air Force and export customers. The only new-build engines in Russian service power the Su-34 long-range bomber, the first two full-production examples of which entered service on 15 December 2006. The Ukraine plans to reduce its fleet of 55 Su-27s to 35, which are to undergo “substantial modernisation”, which may include bringing the engines up to one of the later standards described below (probably the AL-31FN, but see the Salyut entry).

The engine is entirely modular, with the ability to replace the nozzle, afterburner, mixer, LP turbine, LP compressor and gearbox without removing the remainder from the aircraft. With the engine installed, it is also possible to replace the 1st LP compressor blades or all rotor stages of the HP spool. A high proportion of the construction is steel or titanium. A particular design feature was to achieve LP and HP compressors which would not surge no matter what might be happening in the sharp-edged aircraft inlet at extreme or even negative AOA, and to eliminate acoustic connection between the afterburner and the LP spool. In 2001 Salyut — improperly, according to Saturn — announced that it had completed the design and testing of an upgraded AL-31F.

Since I was not very sure of the designation letter sequence of Su-34’s engine and since I was writing without my sources at hand, I had used “AFAIK”. Maybe I should have been more and more clear: You seem to lack the ability to read and comprehend in a calm manner.

Serial production AL-31’s hardly push 1,000h MTBO value, this is a fact. You don’t believe they had tripled or quadrupled this, do you? The point here IS NOT MTBO(AL-31) < MTBO(F110), so F110 better, NEVER HAS BEEN. The point here is both engines were designed along different strategies.

Again: My point has not been comparing strict values, but comparing two different design&production philosophies. In a strange way, you interpreted this as if I was bashing Russian systems – quite contrary I am closer to their approach on quantity – quality balance.

@Trident,

I had interpreted that statement in Usynaptics web site as their IFDIS system helped increase the MTBO of the radar, not the specific LRU, since the MTBO of (V)5 is quoted as somewhere around that range. Jane’s quotes (V)5 MTBF as 254h and (V)9 as 390h – Don’t think that I’m a Jane’s fanboy but it is one of the more credible sources out there. OTOH Zhuk AE and MFE both have max MTBF of 200hrs

This is old links. RD-33MK and 117 has 4000 hrs life. I presume AL-31FM life will be closer to that now.
8000 hr life for Western engines on paper otherwise why buy spare engines. $30m is reasonable price for Su-34 as it lacks composites that make aircraft expensive and Russia is largest titanium producers. Engines are shared across Flanker line up.
Zhuk-m radar is 1980s. It Zhuk-ME that is refined.
Flanker is highly reliable plane despite its long range use. very low crash rates and no airframe breakup.
See this request for 30 F-16. extra engines from begining

I am not talking about reliability, nor have I ever mentioned they are unreliable.

Low MTBF does not mean low reliability. You produce your system to have 100 hours MTBF and it breaks down almost exactly after 100hrs of operation, while equivalent systems can promise 1,000hrs MTBF and yet your system has high reliability.

The order for 42 engines is 30 for ordered aircraft plus 12 spares, because: 1. long term storage / spare, 2. high flight hours of the F-16’s, especially this Block 50+ examples.

The argument “if 8000hrs service life so why buy spares” is not worth a comment

So Sukhoi can sell Su-34 at a unit price as cheap as a single An-148, or for about 30% more than the price of a single Mi-17V. Hard to believe?

The money to be spent on spare parts, logistics, maintenance and extra engines etc will pretty much close the gap I think.

Beware: This does not necessarily mean that it islow quality or inferior. It’s just the grand strategy behind the design and production.

They’re meant to be getting 12 ex-Portuguese birds by 2017.

AFAIK those will be the ex-US ANG F-16A’s procured through Peace Atlantis II. In other words, Romanians are getting third hand F-16’s.