EagleDriver Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 $36 million doesn't seem too much comparing to US AC ? Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 $36 million doesn't seem too much comparing to US AC ? What? I missed that somewhere. These aircraft are only $36 million a piece? Chappie Link to post Share on other sites
davetur Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Same- I had to bookmark that after poking around for a while. That's a LOT of different variants on that airframe.jb I think if you take out the flying testbeds and the country suffixes (I=India, M=Malaysia etc.) the really operational variants are not so many. Davide Link to post Share on other sites
Anarchy Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Confusing?Take a look at the Flanker variants listed here: http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27_var.htm Wow, that's a fantastic Link ... i've beel looking aroung for quite some time but somehow missed that ... now i gotta update my Flanker Database Link to post Share on other sites
bigpaul Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 If I remember correctly I read that these planes also have a crapper on board, now that alone makes it a value at 36 million a pop. Link to post Share on other sites
OKB Krasnaya Zvezda Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Chappie Posted Today, 05:56 PM QUOTE(EagleDriver @ Mar 7 2007, 03:58 PM) $36 million doesn't seem too much comparing to US AC ? What? I missed that somewhere. These aircraft are only $36 million a piece? Chappie Yep! 36 millions, check this site to see some other a/c prices and start to save some money clicky! Link to post Share on other sites
David Walker Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 That's a fantastic looking aircraft. Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 If I remember correctly I read that these planes also have a crapper on board, now that alone makes it a value at 36 million a pop. Till it flies inverted. Regards, Murph Link to post Share on other sites
BAM'n'IVM Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Till it flies inverted. That's where Russian pragmatism comes into play. Instead of a lid, the toilet comes with a large cork... Link to post Share on other sites
Zmey Smirnoff Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Confusing?Take a look at the Flanker variants listed here: http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27_var.htm While comprehesive and useful (thank you EF), that link makes the matter appear more confusing than it really is. The list is too complete. :) Here is my attempt with the focus on major mods ----Operational------ Su-27/27UB(approx. 300 in RuAF) Su-27SM(approx. 24+ in RuAF) Su-30(no letter, 5 in RuAF) Su-33(around 30-40 in service? I am not sure) Su-34(forget Su-32 and probably forger 27IB as well) Su-30MKK(China) Su-30MKI(India) Vietnam, Ethiopia, Venezuela and other non-CIS countries operate small numbers of Su-30MK with minor variations in optional equipment. Nothing special. ---major experimental mods---- Su-33UB(side-by-side two-seater Su-33) Su-37 (first TVC/canard - crashed) Su-35(11 produced - given to Russian Knights) -----major proposed ----- Su-27BM/Su-35BM (index is still unclear- noncanard mod with greater A2G capabilites, AESA?) Please feel free to add, but IMHO thats about it when it comes to major noteworthy mods. Everything else is just different camos and flashy markings. Best regards. Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 That's where Russian pragmatism comes into play. Instead of a lid, the toilet comes with a large cork... Technology at it's best indeed ! Link to post Share on other sites
Zmey Smirnoff Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Technology at it's best indeed :) ! Hahahahahaha... you guys are hillarious. Link to post Share on other sites
shadowy_one Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 i have a video on the FLANKER - VHS tape with all the variants i believe the SU-34 was originally designated SU-32 codename PLATYPUS it really does look like a platypus with that nose Link to post Share on other sites
Shark Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 (edited) Let it go my friend. It's a rare non-US aircraft post that does not end bad in this site. It's degraded real bad lately. Back on topic (and let's see if the local clowns can keep their peace); so what happened to the designation Su-32 and Su-27IB? is Su 34 the final designation? I remember it was called Platypus by Jane's Defence Weekly for a long time. Since when did it become 'Fullback'? What's it called by the VVS? Shark Edited March 8, 2007 by Shark Link to post Share on other sites
Zmey Smirnoff Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 (edited) Let it go my friend. It's a rare non-US aircraft post that does not end bad in this site. It's degraded real bad lately.Back on topic (and let's see if the local clowns can keep their peace); so what happened to the designation Su-32 and Su-27IB? is Su 34 the final designation? I remember it was called Platypus by Jane's Defence Weekly for a long time. Since when did it become 'Fullback'? What's it called by the VVS? Shark Index Su-32 and Su-32FN hasnt been used for years and can be forgotten. During the Su-34 handover VVS big cheese Mikhailov did not refer to the planes as Su-27IB - so that too can be written off. At least Su-34 is different enough from Su-27 to rightfully deserve a new index (unlike MiG-35). Plus it compliments the tactical bomber index line of Su-24 -> Su-34 As far as Platypus, Fullback and so on, I'll leave on collective consience of Janes and NATO. When it comes to Russian aviation, Janes uses same open online sources like the rest of us, including forums like KP. Quite often their articles feature misconceptions and mistakes seen there. NATO or should I say OTAN's designation "Fullback" seems to be official and final. Not flattering, but could be worse. Btw, Original "Platypus" was MiG-27 - I am getting really annoyed and tired of good, productive topics hijacked by Tweetophiles and neffing comedians of various sorts. If you dont have anything to contribute/ask/comment - dont post. Haw hard is it? Edited March 8, 2007 by Zmey Smirnoff Link to post Share on other sites
Shark Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I hear you. That's why I seldom come here no more. So it's Su34, Fullback. ok - Academy - where's the 1/48 model then!!!! or at least a resin set from SOL!! Shark Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Along with that comes another factor: weight. That is one HEAVY airframe. At max T/O weight, its hammering the scales into the ground at just under 100,000lbs Holy cow. 100,000lbs? I thought the F-15E was a pig at 80K. By "heavy" do you mean heavy as in adding a lot of internal equipment or heavy as in overbuilt? And I don't see anything wrong with overbuilt. Zmey, Thanks for the condensed list. Your list makes it easier to absorb and comprehend. Chappie Link to post Share on other sites
thetoe17 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I don't think that they probably realistically intend to replace the Su-24's on a "tail-to-tail" basis. There's just no way economically that Russia will be able to accomplish that. I think more likely they intend to get as many as they can and supplant them with updated Su-24's. I think it will be a similar situation to what we're seeing lately of the USAF's long-term plans for F-22 procurement. We're only budgeted for a portion of what we need/want, so F-15's are planned to remain in service for longer than originally planned. I'm by no means an expert in the matter though, and Waco makes some very good points about weight and avionics...I never thought about the fact that the radar and avionics are already probably somewhat outdated, and that weight is kind of ridiculous. In the end it will be interesting to see how it goes and what function it serves in the VVS. From a modeler's perspective, I'm excited to see it coming on line. Even with that gigantic tail boom, its still one of the most interesting and beautiful aircraft designs I've seen in awhile, especially for a combat aircraft. And it just looks so damn cool when its fully loaded up. I have an Italeri Su-34 about 60% done, and collected enough 1/72 Russian weapons to load it up about 8 times, that's been sitting around waiting for paint for about a year...might be time to finish that one up! Link to post Share on other sites
Keith Diamond Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Till it flies inverted.Regards, Murph :lol: :) Speaking of those relief tubes, my dad used to be a CC on A-7Ds back at Myrtle Beach. He used to tell me how there would sometimes be yellow streaks on the side of the fuselage. Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 :lol: :) Speaking of those relief tubes, my dad used to be a CC on A-7Ds back at Myrtle Beach. He used to tell me how there would sometimes be yellow streaks on the side of the fuselage. Mountain Dew ? :huh: Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Zmey Smirnoff Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Generally the price sticker for the RuAF is quite lower than that for the foreign customers. Not sure if it’s a good thing or not. Su-34 is the first new plane supplied to the RuAF after the collapse of the USSR (Not counting upgraded airframes like Su-27SM, Mi-24PN and so on). In a sense, there is established network of support in place, but there are possibilities of problems, Su-34 being a new plane and all. The insufficient number of planes acquired for RuAF is a major issue not only for Su-24/Su-34. I can’t think of any branch of VVS that is properly supplied. Maybe Long Range Aviation… But with Su-24M2 upgrade program on the way as well as Su-34 production… there is a chance that we can supply new and upgraded a/c slightly faster than we are writing off cannibalized old “suitcasesâ€. Firstly, one can hope that with the general improvement of the economy, eventually we’ll speed up production rates. More importantly, I hope the international climate will remain favorable, where we wont have to speed-up the production because we absolutely have to. If you know what I mean. Weight is a non-factor in my mind. Su-34 is borderline strategic plane with strike weapon capabilities above and beyond Su-24. There are plenty of long strips for them to fly from. I don’t see Su-34 in a fighter role other than basic self-defense, until that time I’m proven wrong. Avionics aren’t up to standard quite yet, but there is a hidden virtue there. RuAF pilots need to get trained and used to operating MFDs and other new equipment. Don’t want to put someone used to clockwork Su-24 in a completely “glass†cockpit. I am imagining newer production batches, in turn, will come with newer avionics. After all, its been traditionally lacking before. The presence of a toilet, massaging seat cushions and kitchenette as well as other amenities will appear eventually. We still don’t have up-to-date photos of the cockpit for any upgraded a/c. Regards. Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 something of interest in regards to cost i found: 2000 Su-30MKK for China - 47.4 mln USD 2003 Su-30MK2 for China - 50 mln 2003 SU-30MKM for Malasia (clone of MKI) - 52,9 mln 2006 Su-30MK2 for Venezuela - 62,5-66,7 mln 2006 Su-30MKA (clone of MKI) - 71,4 mln For RuAF KNAAPO version cost about 1 bln rubles, last price of Su-34 about 850 mln rubles. For export Su-34 "offered for export at the price of $36 million" Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Now THOSE numbers I'd believe a lot more. Especially when you get into the MKx variants, with their extensively outsource avionics, integration, TVC (some variants), etc. 65-72million USD is NOT a cheap multi-role fighter. Link to post Share on other sites
Chappie Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Weight is a non-factor in my mind. Su-34 is borderline strategic plane with strike weapon capabilities above and beyond Su-24. There are plenty of long strips for them to fly from. I don’t see Su-34 in a fighter role other than basic self-defense, until that time I’m proven wrong. Yeah, if there is one thing Russia is not lacking is real estate!! At the risk off getting off topic, my favorite Russian military aircraft are the MiG-25, MiG-31, and Tu-160. What is the operational status of the Blackjack? Chappie Link to post Share on other sites
Zmey Smirnoff Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 What is the operational status of the Blackjack?Chappie 16 in service at Engels. All are slated for engine/avionics/weapon system upgrade - (More economic engines, navigation, Kh-555 conventional missile). Few have gone through already. 2 more a promised in 2007 (#$%#%!!! they have been promising for ages now). One is being prepped at Kazan plant. I have no idea where they are going to pull out the second from. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts