SrbinYes, number of them purchased ALREADY would take into account the unit cost.
In the Brazilian deal, both Gripen and Su-35 were offered for a pretty cheap price, just that the M2KBR’s cost was something like 70mn:wow:
Anyways, there is no more a fixed unit price for a plane, it’s because they always come with all the spares, support, weapons and all the other ****.
USAF for ex get’s their F-16blk50s for a low cost, but then when it’s sold to foreign nations that costs dramatically jumps. If you also include all the goodies with it, that jumps even more.
ohh and another thing, China licence produced 200 SU-27SKs and as it seems the whole cost of them was 15mn/plane produced in China.
SrbinYes MFI does have a huge internal bay, something like 12 internal hardpoints. About 4 more than F-22’s.
SrbinYes the RMAF deal was pretty expensive, perhaps the most expensive Flanker ever made.
Also one more thing, the Brazilian deal was 700mn for 24 Su-35s=29mn/plane.
If you really take all the prices that were payed for all the Flankers, and find the average for all of them, then you’ll see that the average price would be something like 35mn approx.
It all depends how much you really want in the deal.
SrbinAs in “no radar upgrade”, for example ?
You would really think so?
Am not sure about the Lancer upgrade but the Sniper upgrade for Mig-29 retains the same old radar of the Mig-29A. the -2000 does give it new radar.
Radar and avionics are not the only important things in an upgrade of an old fighter.
The R-27 has not performed well (Eritrea) the R-77 (export model) is thought to have been compromised, the same can not be said of the Python 4 and the Derby. Dunno about the R-73 though. So in essence I would consider my self better off betting on Israeli hardware jamming the **** out of a bunch of MiG-21-93’s packing a limited BVR capability than I would be betting on the MiG-21-93 toasting a fighter packing Israeli technology with its [MiG-21-93’s] limited BVR capability.
Actually There are many different versions of R-27 and R-77 is doing fine and nothing seems to be wrong about it
Ohh you don’t know about R-73…….
Limited BVR?
You don’t know nothing about the -93 upgrade
That really depends on the tactical situation and what you can afford, also keep in mind that there are fuel efficient ‘bolt in’ replacement engines available for the MiG-21. The MiG-21 has been used successfully in the air to ground role most recently during the Badme war. Think what the Ethiopinas would have been able to do to Asmara Airport if they had not run out of $$$ and gotten their MiG-21’s fully upgraded with Israeli LGB’s and designator pods. Although I would personally rather go for a Kfir or an FC-1 if I was equipping a small airforce+air defense system on a budget of say, the amount of money the USA shells out for a trio of F-22’s . In the end a MiG-21-2000/MiG-21 ‘Lancer’ is better than sending your foot soldiers guerilla hunting with no air support at all.
Actually the Ethiopians always used their Mig-23s mostly in the ground attack role because the Mig-21’s payload, range and number of hardpoints are really abyssimal.
I’d like to know that myself.
Well I am not sure either but I think it’d be safe to assume that the Israeli one is more expensive.
Take the MiG-21 ‘Lancer for example:
‘The Lancer C packs an Elta 2032 multimode radar and carries Python 3 missiles. The Lancer A is capable of carrying guided munitions, a laser designator pod and a recon pod. It is possible to bolt in a new engine althoug as far as I know all of the customers for either the Israeli upgrades or the MiG-21-93 kept the old original engines.
What’s this new engine? also what about other upgrades to the structure and such?
SrbinI was wondering where you got the figures for 50mn for the Gripen in the Brazilian deal, I’ve been looking high and low for some numbers and couldn’t find any, other than the expected value of the competition.
Go to ACIG and you’ll find numerous reports. The Su-35 was offered for 35mn, Gripen for 50 and M2KBR for 70.
also i have read that the swedes are paying a net 25-30 mill for their gripens in 98 dolllars…i guess it is all confusing……also the fact that the usaf paid 20 mill+ for their early f-16C’s if u go by the official figures…..
Yes but thats the makers paying that much, if you sell it to a foreign AF, it will cost at least 40-45mn and if you sell it with all the goodies it’s price will go up by another 10mn probably.
So, France gets their Rafales for 45-50mn, yet when sold to foreigners it’s much more expensive and even more if you add the goodies to it.
SrbinActually no, they are not just simple unit prices. Look at the many deals, such as the intial Chinese, Indian, Indonesian and all kinds of other deals where everything is included. In the Brazilian deal, everyone tried going low, The Gripen was offered for 50mn, the Su-35 for 35mn and etc. They all included spares, support and all the other ****.
SrbinWell this is just NUMBERS. Some of them are hypothetical but some are not, and those hypothetical are not like way off. This is not between picking between F-16blk50 or Su-30MKI, but the point is to show that the Su-30MKI is not that much more expensive.
Take into account the Gripen, it costs on average around 50-65mn to buy and is cheaper to run than a F-16blk50 so I would have to say that a Gripen would at least have to be 30% cheaper at the end than a F-16blk50.
yes the other things you have to take into account that are related to costs are
-Overhaul costs which vary all the time
-Cost of Supplies
-Potential Cost of Upgrades
I could also show the costs of a Mig-29M vs Gripen for example.
Mig-29M costs to purchase, around 25mn
Gripen on the other hand, costed South Africa 65mn to buy, was offered to Brazil for 50mn. Average of that is 57.5
Life Cycle Costs:
-Mig-29M is said to cost around 5000/h, although this was quoted by MiG, not sure if it true. If you run it for 300h per year for 25years than thats 7500h=75mn
-Gripen is said to cost around 2500/h to operate, and 7500 throughout life=37.5mn
Gripen so so far it’s 37.5+57.5=95mn
Mig-29M so far is 25+75=100mn
This is without taking into consideration the engine cycle costs because I am not really sure about the costs or the service life or the Mig-29M’s or Gripen’s engines, but if someone could get me the digits it’d be greatly appreciated, where it would add up even more to the Mig-29. Not to mention the Mig-29M is also inferior to the Gripen overall.
There are some things in there that are more of a guess, but a good guess because
1)Gripen’s purchase cost is a problem, we don’t know exactly if it would be sold for 50mn
2)We are not sure of their engine costs and such
3)We kind of know about the Gripen’s operating costs which are always quoted at 2500/h but we are not sure about Mig-29M’s other than what it was quoted at 5000 by MiG
4)If we took into considerations the Engine costs, the Gripen’s would be probably a little cheaper,
The Gripen is superior to Mig-29M and would be cheaper, but politically the Mig-29M is better.
SrbinThere is really a bit more to the Israeli MiG-21 upgrades than just popping in a flashy new cockpit. Depending on how much you want to pay they will fit an Elta-2032 radar which theoretically should enable the aircraft to carry not only the Python 3/4 but also the Derby. In addition the Israeli upgrades give more flexibility by adding an advanced recon capability as well as more advanced Air to Ground weapons than Russia can offer. The former capability is usually undervalued by military aircraft buffs. Does anybody know what sort of Recon capability comes with the MiG-21-93 package??
yes and the -93 gives it capability to R-73, R-77 and R-27. However I think it can also carry an ARM missile forget which one.
Also who would really want to use a Mig-21 in teh ground attack role given it’s reallly really pathetic range and payload and only 4 hardpoints.
Also how much does the -2000 upgrade cost compared to the -93 and that is important for cash strapped countries. Not only that but what kind of engine and other upgrades does the -2000 give besides new radar, avionics and integration of new weapons because the -93 gives it that too.
SrbinActually the operating costs for F-16blk50 and Su-30MKI are probably more but their ratio to each other, ie Su-30MKI being twice as more expensive to operate than F-16 is probably likely or maybe not.
Also total number of aircraft is irrelevant in terms of percentage. If you have 50 F-16s, then 50*116.5=5.825bn, Su-30MKI=50*128=6.4bn
5.825/6.4=91%.
But if you want to even out the cost, and make number of Su-30MKIs to be able to cost 5.825bn at the end of their service life then, that would equal approx 45.5 Su-30MKIs to even out the cost.
Srbinwell not exactly advanced but better, and in performance really.
Well i think both of their airframes would be able to take some 7500 flying hours. Even if they needed strengthening and etc, I don’t think it would be that expensive for sending them to Russia.
SrbinI don’t know about the -2000/Lancer upgrade much like the Mig-29 Sniper upgrade. They seem to be perely cockpit upgrades and nothing else. I’d rather go to Russia for the -93 or the SMT upgrades where they competely improve everything from engines to structure and other stuff and not just the cockpit.
SrbinYes maybe a small Carrier carrying few helis and 6-7 F-35Bs wouldn’t be that expensive.
Srbinthe biggest “could’ve been” was the Avro Arrow. It’s extreme capability, advance specifications and technology in it, made it probably the “greatest could’ve been” alot of planes out there had their good replacements, the Arrow did not really and the Voodoo was not half as good.
SrbinYes, our defence ministers have stressed a need for new Attack Helicopters. It seemed that the Gazelles are kind of old and unsuitable now.
I would still go to Russia for new Attack Helicopters, something like a 12-14mn Mi-28N, rather than buying a 60mn Apache or Tiger.
Srbinnot 8000 lol. I doubt.
But anyways, the S-400’s engaging capability is something like 2-2.5 times that of any S-300. For every 2 S-300 sets, you need one S-400 set.
Sign In
