Stock of the United States’ largest defence contractor Lockheed Martin was downgraded to Hold from Buy at Deutsche Bank by 14.5 percent, with a price target of $523
F22 was introduced in 1996, SU57 is a new platform that’s still being tested and hasn’t been put into mass production. The manufacturing only started in 2019, and there are already 32 produced. Let me know if you need help crunching the numbers on that one.
What’s the su57 cost per hour taking into account maintainer income differences?
The cost of the entire jet is a mere $35 million. Here’s an article you can read discussing the lifetime cost comparison
If you’re saying it’s still pre production, then it’s production delay is worse than the F35. It’s first flight was in 2010, so that puts it at 15 years from first fight to lrip and counting. F35 only had 10 year timeline between first flight in 2001 and lrip in 2011.
First, maintenance costs are fundamentally different from sticker price. To find maintenance cost, you’d want to find the maintenance factor, how many hours of maintenance per flight hour, and the cost of replacement parts per flight hour.
Comparing quoted sticker price isn’t much good either, since they haven’t sold any, and as you said it’s still pre production, so even if the cost wasn’t subsidized, it’d still be way off from final numbers.
If you’re saying it’s still pre production, then it’s production delay is worse than the F35.
I’m saying it’s still being tested in actual combat conditions and kinks are being ironed out before mass production starts. This is how you avoid having a debacle like F35 where you start producing something in volume and then discover crippling problems down the road.
Also, not sure what argument you’re trying to make regarding the cost being subsidized. The cost is labor and material used to build it. It costs the Russian state 35 million a pop. There is absolutely no reason to think this cost will go up dramatically once mass production starts. In fact, what happens is that economies of scale kick in and costs go down.
The article I linked above talks about lifetime costs. Just to be clear, are you seriously trying to argue that the maintenance cost of SU-57 is comparable to that of F-35. Just want to have that on record here.
I’m trying to say we have no idea what the maintenance costs are on the su57. Russia doesn’t report things like that. I don’t know if they even track it themselves. So you can’t just blanket say the su57 is cheaper to maintain unless you bring data.
One thing that works against Russia in maintenance is they tend to run their equipment much harder. To get good performance on their engines, they sometimes push them so that they only last a couple hundred flight hours. Doing the same with many components would indicate a very high maintenance factor.
Of course you can blanket say that SU57 is cheaper. We know that the total cost of the jet is a fraction of f35, we know that Russian military industry is state owned, and is not operated for profit, and we know that Russia spends a fraction of what US does on the military overall. It’s obvious to anybody with even a minimally functioning brain that the cost of weapon production in Russia is much lower than in the US. Meanwhile, the fact that Russia makes engines that actually last a long time shows the strength of Russian engineering.
To back calculate the cost per flight hour (which is what you’re suggesting) we’d need to know the overall cost of the su57 and the number of flight hours flown. Do we know those numbers? Given there are only about a dozen su57, they’ll have very low flight hours. Plus Russia tends to have about half the training time for pilots as the US, so that further lowers the flight hours.
But do you have info on the yearly cost of the su57?
I don’t have info on SU57 yearly costs, aside from the link I’ve already provided for you. However, as I keep repeating, and you keep ignoring, overall military spending in Russia is FAR LOWER than in the US. That alone clearly shows that cost has to be lower. Perhaps try engaging with that instead of dancing around the elephant in the room.
F22 was introduced in 1996, SU57 is a new platform that’s still being tested and hasn’t been put into mass production. The manufacturing only started in 2019, and there are already 32 produced. Let me know if you need help crunching the numbers on that one.
The cost of the entire jet is a mere $35 million. Here’s an article you can read discussing the lifetime cost comparison
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/06/23/how-su-57-dodged-the-f-22-f-35s-lifetime-crippling-cost-bullet/
If you’re saying it’s still pre production, then it’s production delay is worse than the F35. It’s first flight was in 2010, so that puts it at 15 years from first fight to lrip and counting. F35 only had 10 year timeline between first flight in 2001 and lrip in 2011.
First, maintenance costs are fundamentally different from sticker price. To find maintenance cost, you’d want to find the maintenance factor, how many hours of maintenance per flight hour, and the cost of replacement parts per flight hour.
Comparing quoted sticker price isn’t much good either, since they haven’t sold any, and as you said it’s still pre production, so even if the cost wasn’t subsidized, it’d still be way off from final numbers.
I’m saying it’s still being tested in actual combat conditions and kinks are being ironed out before mass production starts. This is how you avoid having a debacle like F35 where you start producing something in volume and then discover crippling problems down the road.
Also, not sure what argument you’re trying to make regarding the cost being subsidized. The cost is labor and material used to build it. It costs the Russian state 35 million a pop. There is absolutely no reason to think this cost will go up dramatically once mass production starts. In fact, what happens is that economies of scale kick in and costs go down.
Anyway, let’s talk maintenance costs. You have any data?
The article I linked above talks about lifetime costs. Just to be clear, are you seriously trying to argue that the maintenance cost of SU-57 is comparable to that of F-35. Just want to have that on record here.
I’m trying to say we have no idea what the maintenance costs are on the su57. Russia doesn’t report things like that. I don’t know if they even track it themselves. So you can’t just blanket say the su57 is cheaper to maintain unless you bring data.
One thing that works against Russia in maintenance is they tend to run their equipment much harder. To get good performance on their engines, they sometimes push them so that they only last a couple hundred flight hours. Doing the same with many components would indicate a very high maintenance factor.
Of course you can blanket say that SU57 is cheaper. We know that the total cost of the jet is a fraction of f35, we know that Russian military industry is state owned, and is not operated for profit, and we know that Russia spends a fraction of what US does on the military overall. It’s obvious to anybody with even a minimally functioning brain that the cost of weapon production in Russia is much lower than in the US. Meanwhile, the fact that Russia makes engines that actually last a long time shows the strength of Russian engineering.
I was saying exactly the opposite. US engines usually last a couple thousand hours, Russian engines last a few hundred.
do feel free to provide sources for the claim
To back calculate the cost per flight hour (which is what you’re suggesting) we’d need to know the overall cost of the su57 and the number of flight hours flown. Do we know those numbers? Given there are only about a dozen su57, they’ll have very low flight hours. Plus Russia tends to have about half the training time for pilots as the US, so that further lowers the flight hours.
But do you have info on the yearly cost of the su57?
I don’t have info on SU57 yearly costs, aside from the link I’ve already provided for you. However, as I keep repeating, and you keep ignoring, overall military spending in Russia is FAR LOWER than in the US. That alone clearly shows that cost has to be lower. Perhaps try engaging with that instead of dancing around the elephant in the room.