What's new

Su 30 MKI: How much does it cost??

karan.1970

BANNED
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
14,781
Reaction score
-20
Country
India
Location
India
I was trying to figure out the cost of a India manufactured SU 30 MKI considering it will be now manufactured 100% indigenously from 2010 (including the engine..). I got a figure of $22.5 million from a couple of sites and that ties in with the figures of a $3.5 billion contract to locally build 140 planes. However the recent contract of 42 aircraft has been touted to cost $ 3+ billion which shows the import cost close to $70 million..

Can some one throw some light on this??
 
.
22.5 mil. is too good to be true...sometimes back on BR someone said it was close to 65 mil. when imported and close to 45 if made in india...
but cant say how true the figures are..?
 
.
This number appears in quite a few sites.. COuld it be the cost of manufacture and the royalty over and above needs to be paid out to Russia??
 
. . .
Hi
Don't we have enough threads on SU-30 already :undecided:

Its a search for information and would have got lost there.If mods allow it, this can continue as a separate thread and in a couple of days Mods can merge this in the bigger Su 30 thread ..
 
.
This number appears in quite a few sites.. COuld it be the cost of manufacture and the royalty over and above needs to be paid out to Russia??

Hmmm ... makes we wonder. Somehow the numbers dont add up for the 40 odd SU30 MKI. I am trying to find out the details in the mean time.

BTW, nice thread.
:cheers:
 
.
Ok ill try to explain this –


The Su-30's fly away cost from the HAL is around 22.5 million. Now keep in mind that is just the fly away cost, just with elementary systems and no India specific armament and avionics. Now add the additional add-ons that make the S0-30Mk into an MKI and the cost goes up to around $35-40, keeping in mind that we have to pay a royalty on many of avionics related parts on the MKI. HAL has a huge team just devoted to the procurement of MKI related parts and its quite a complex equation. Every plane has slightly different cost because Labor and parts availability are variables that will always effect the final cost. Its safe to say that by making the MKI at home we save around 5-10 million on each jet but the amount varies as production is never a straight forward equation specially when we are dealing with production on such a scale. You will not find an accurate cost anywhere on the internet as frankly there is nothing like an exact cost in the first pleace. Hope that answered your question.
 
.
I was trying to figure out the cost of a India manufactured SU 30 MKI considering it will be now manufactured 100% indigenously from 2010 (including the engine..). I got a figure of $22.5 million from a couple of sites and that ties in with the figures of a $3.5 billion contract to locally build 140 planes. However the recent contract of 42 aircraft has been touted to cost $ 3+ billion which shows the import cost close to $70 million..

Can some one throw some light on this??

the import cost also includes spare parts as well as ongoing technical support. The higher cost per plane when taking spare parts and technical assistance, into consideration shows how much money it takes to maintain a fleet of 4.5 generation aircrafts. I wont be surprised that the total cost with spare part and technical support, would be around the $50 - $60 million range even for a domestically manufactured MKI. The MKI is a huge machine and needs to be checked after each flight. Internal parts such as the Tubing to the engines or internal ignition components probably need replacement after 2-3 sorties on an average. This is a 2 engine jet and that a lot of work. For parts that have to be made to order such as structural parts, we either get them from Sukhoi when we need them or because now we have TOT, we make the part using the transfered drawing and specifications when we need them. Again the cost of the material, the set of the of the machine (CNC etc), cost of labor, overhead, logistics etc etc have to be taken into account. Adding all this the cost of MKI easily in the 50-60 million range.
 
.
the import cost also includes spare parts as well as ongoing technical support. The higher cost per plane when taking spare parts and technical assistance, into consideration shows how much money it takes to maintain a fleet of 4.5 generation aircrafts. I wont be surprised that the total cost with spare part and technical support, would be around the $50 - $60 million range even for a domestically manufactured MKI. The MKI is a huge machine and needs to be checked after each flight. Internal parts such as the Tubing to the engines or internal ignition components probably need replacement after 2-3 sorties on an average. This is a 2 engine jet and that a lot of work. For parts that have to be made to order such as structural parts, we either get them from Sukhoi when we need them or because now we have TOT, we make the part using the transfered drawing and specifications when we need them. Again the cost of the material, the set of the of the machine (CNC etc), cost of labor, overhead, logistics etc etc have to be taken into account. Adding all this the cost of MKI easily in the 50-60 million range.

gotcha.. So if I compare a home made SU 30 MKI, to the flyaway cost of $15 mill of a JF 17, would I take the cost of $22.5 or $50-60?
 
.
gotcha.. So if I compare a home made SU 30 MKI, to the flyaway cost of $15 mill of a JF 17, would I take the cost of $22.5 or $50-60?

50-60 would be your best bet, as to become an MKI the SU-30 needs the add-on's and the 22.5 million fly away cost does not include them. The JF-17 itself will get to around the 20-30 million bracket with all the add-on's it plans to get. So its fair to use full cost rather than the fly away cost when comparing price.
 
.
50-60 would be your best bet, as to become an MKI the SU-30 needs the add-on's and the 22.5 million fly away cost does not include them. The JF-17 itself will get to around the 20-30 million bracket with all the add-on's it plans to get. So its fair to use full cost rather than the fly away cost when comparing price.

Sorry if I am being dense.. But if 22.5 will become 50-60 mill then why is JF 17's flyaway cost of $15 Mill only go up to 20-30 mill
 
.
Sorry if I am being dense.. But if 22.5 will become 50-60 mill then why is JF 17's flyaway cost of $15 Mill only go up to 20-30 mill

1) The Jf-17 is a single engine jet, so that reduces the amount parts needed quite a lot.

2)The MKI is an air domination fighter and meant to be Indian frontline jet. It uses avionics from many different suppliers spanning 5 countries. The import cost as well as logistics cost is higher when compared to the JF-17 which currently mainly uses Chinese parts.

3) The JF-17 is primarily an interceptor or P2P fighter. Its not meant to take on other aircrafts in an attacking role like the MKI.

4)The MKI need sto multitask and be a true multirole aircraft, this add's on the amount of " Fancy Stuff" it needs lol The JF-17 also has some multi role capability but nothing as detailed as the MKI.

5) The MKI also encompasses advanced technologies such as TVC, use of modern jammers, having the ability to deliver nuclear weapons etc etc. the add-on’s and the avionics must match up to it in terms of quality. Its simple logic really, for example the F-22’s fly away cost is only about 40% of its total cost but once you start adding all the “ Fun stuff” lol is when you start incurring cost. The jet is only as good as its avionics.

The IAF has access to technologies that the PAF currently does not have access to. The latest tech from Israel, Russia and the United States is not cheap and has a higher maintenance cost. For example the screens on the MKI are G & D multi function displays which itself cost more than a 2010 BMW lol. So you can imagine how each and every part raises the cost exponentially. You must keep in mind that when military parts are bought, most of the time warranty and service packages are also bought. The IAF has spend a long time on the MKI and its reaping the good results now.

Again one cannot compare the JF-17 with the MKI because it’s the same when we compare the MKI with the F-22. They are totally different types of jets and require different prices ranges of parts.
 
.
Types of costs for military aircraft


There are a variety of types of costs related to military aircraft programs, with each form of accounting used for different purposes and insights. The two types most commonly reported are the unit "flyaway cost" (FAC) and "unit procurement cost" (UPC), the latter also being referred to by some as "unit program(me) cost". A "unit" cost is simply the indicated type of cost divided by the number of aircraft being paid for (i.e., the "per airplane" cost). The FAC is what most people think of as an airplane's cost. Unfortunately, there are two different costs that get referred to "flyaway cost". The UPC is most often reported as the total announced price of an acquisition program divided by the number of aircraft, but this is just an approximation because programs can and do vary widely in what "other stuff" is included.

For the purposes of Wikipedia, our order of preference for cost types we provide should be 1) basic FAC, 2) "Total FAC" and 3) UPC. However, for those who want to better understand how these costs are defined and build upon one another, the following paragraphs discuss each type.

Recurring flyaway cost: Usually reported as the "unit recurring flyaway" (URF) cost, this covers only the airframe, engines, avionics, and other such equipment that come "standard" with every airplane (and thus are "recurring"). The URF is one of the two fundamental cost elements of the basic FAC. Until the F-35 program began using it, the URF was rarely ever reported in the general press. The F-35 program uses it to capture those costs of the basic airplane that are common to all of the partners. The partners are individually responsible for those "nonrecurring" elements they may desire to better "tailor" the airplane to their specific requirements. The F-35's URF is often mis-reported as the airplane's FAC, but this understates the true FAC.

Nonrecurring flyaway cost: Almost never separately reported, the nonrecurring costs include basic "startup" costs which are apportioned over the whole fleet of aircraft planned to be built for the purchaser(s), as well as allowances for user-required changes. The nonrecurring cost is typically a fraction of the recurring cost.

Flyaway cost: The basic flyaway cost (FAC) is the sum of the recurring and nonrecurring costs and is always reported as a "unit flyaway cost" (usually abbreviated "FAC" or, rarely, "UFAC"). It is the most commonly reported cost and is normally what most people think of when they think about what an airplane "costs." However, just to keep things from being simple, there is something called "total flyaway cost".

Total flyaway cost: This is always reported as a "unit" cost, and is often also referred to as the "weapon system cost" or simply as the "flyaway cost" — however, it comprises not only the "basic" flyaway cost, but also the delivery costs and the peculiar support equipment, technical data packages, training equipment, and a variety of contractor services required to provide initial support for the airplanes; all of this is usually amortized over the size of the customer's purchase. Unfortunately, with the total flyaway cost often being called "flyaway cost" and the term "weapon system cost" being used generically (even sometimes for the total lifecycle cost), it can often require an expert to figure out which is which. For the purposes of Wikipedia, editors should treat the "total" FAC and "basic" FAC as roughly the same "in round numbers." For follow-on purchases of a given aircraft by the same customer, this difference is often quite small.


Procurement cost: This can be reported as either a "program cost" or a "unit procurement (or program) cost"; the unit procurement cost (UPC) adds the cost of initial spares — amortized over the quantity being purchased — to the flyaway cost. This is the other most commonly reported type of cost, and is usually derived from the reported procurement program cost divided by the quantity of aircraft being bought. While this is not a fully accurate estimation method, it is usually just about all one has to go with. (It should be noted also that there is no such thing as a "standard initial spares" package for costing purposes.)

Program acquisition cost: Rarely ever seen — and normally only in the US — the PAC adds the costs of research and development, testing and evaluation, and related military construction (e.g., new hangars, test facilities, etc.) to the procurement cost. It can be found in the US DoD's "Selected Acquisition Reports". Detractors of a program often use this to "estimate" an exceptionally high unit cost for an airplane; while it is a "legitimate" form of cost, it is often used as a political tool by comparing it to the FAC or UPC — which are very different types of costs — thereby implying that it is the "real" cost (generally perceived to be the FAC or UPC) of the airplane as opposed to the government's "official" — and by implication, deceptive — cost (the actual FAC or UPC).

Life-cycle cost: The (total) life-cycle cost (LCC) takes the program acquisition cost and adds to it all of the projected lifetime logistic and operational costs: munitions and missiles, AVPOL (fuel, oil, and lubricants), spares (other than initial spares), replenishment, depot maintenance, system support and modifications, as well as the costs of hiring, training, supporting, and paying the personnel associated with the operating unit(s). In recent years, the term "life-cycle costs" has increasingly been used to refer to just the logistic and operational costs, while the term "total life-cycle costs" includes the PAC. While certain things may indeed be done to reduce LCC, any LCC projection should be taken with more than a few grains of salt; I've yet to see a verified and validated methodology for producing a realistic valuation.



The TFC or the Total Flyaway cost is what is the closest estimate is but even then LCC (Life-cycle cost), PAC (Program acquisition cost) and the PC (Procurement cost) must be added. That is why a 22.5 million fly away cost translates into a 50-60 million end cost.

The real big killer component in modern fighters is the cost of avionics. In a book written by Ben Rich (former head of Lockheed's skunk works) in 1994, he estimated that the avionics cost approximately $7,000 per pound of fighter weight! R&D work also takes a large chunk of the costs. And this was a 1994 estimate so its your guess how much they cost now lol
 
.
Ok ill try to explain this –


The Su-30's fly away cost from the HAL is around 22.5 million. Now keep in mind that is just the fly away cost, just with elementary systems and no India specific armament and avionics. Now add the additional add-ons that make the S0-30Mk into an MKI and the cost goes up to around $35-40, keeping in mind that we have to pay a royalty on many of avionics related parts on the MKI. HAL has a huge team just devoted to the procurement of MKI related parts and its quite a complex equation. Every plane has slightly different cost because Labor and parts availability are variables that will always effect the final cost. Its safe to say that by making the MKI at home we save around 5-10 million on each jet but the amount varies as production is never a straight forward equation specially when we are dealing with production on such a scale. You will not find an accurate cost anywhere on the internet as frankly there is nothing like an exact cost in the first pleace. Hope that answered your question.

Why cant we simply add the MKI radar to lca? i mean can we
?
if we can, y don we?
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom