Fast jet hourly operating costs
Thread Starter
Fast jet hourly operating costs
Amazed to see read recently that during Afghanistan, an F16 cost $24,000 per flight hour to keep in the air.
I assume that costs in all the supply chain, logistics support etc?
Probably not an easy question to answer, but in very general terms, if you drew a pie chart, where would the lions share of FJ operating cost occur?
Just curious...
I assume that costs in all the supply chain, logistics support etc?
Probably not an easy question to answer, but in very general terms, if you drew a pie chart, where would the lions share of FJ operating cost occur?
Just curious...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
34 Posts
I would imagine that the lion's share is the cost of running the airfield to fly the aircraft from.... Divide the cost of running that airfield by the number of flying hours and you have the cost. All those health and safety officials and the people that keep DII going on station don't come cheap!
On one type I flew, we knew the Direct Operating Cost of the aircraft for accouinting, but with everything - the true cost would have been much greater. If you acknowledge the raison d'etre of the whole of an Air Force is to get a bomb on the target, the cost of delivering that bomb is very high.
I read an interesting article recently which showed that the US Navy had calcualted that the cost of deliving a strike with a sea launched cruise missile is less than half of the cost of delivering the same strike with a carrier based F18.
I read an interesting article recently which showed that the US Navy had calcualted that the cost of deliving a strike with a sea launched cruise missile is less than half of the cost of delivering the same strike with a carrier based F18.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other thing is, the aircraft can do other things like fleet protection.
Does the cost they determined take into account the cost of the Nuclear Sub
or the ship and all the people, training ?
Does the cost they determined take into account the cost of the Nuclear Sub
or the ship and all the people, training ?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with all statistics this one is malleable depending on what you want to prove. If you wanted to show how efficient your jet was you just tot up the items that you actually use per mission, e.g fuel, oil, hyds and tyres. If you were asked about through life costs you would factor in airframe purchase and up grade, spares etc and if you really wanted to get to a high cost (for example the CAA had a new airway structure in mind that would cost you 10 minutes per sortie) you would include council tax on HAS and the Linie's boot laces. So the reasonable figure always comes in at about 30k per hour, the unrealistic low figure is under 10k and the full blown amount can get up to the 150k ball park.
wrt to Afghanistan I remember being told in 08 that the enemy budget for ops in Helmand was about 100k, which was what OC Kandahar's salary was!
wrt to Afghanistan I remember being told in 08 that the enemy budget for ops in Helmand was about 100k, which was what OC Kandahar's salary was!
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
If you think the cost of getting an FJ over the target is high, just see what the cost of getting a dumb UAV to deliver the Bride some more good news at an Afghan/Yemen wedding is. That's the real cost of not having someone smart making the decisions.
Thread Starter
Interesting points all.
Agreed - the sound of freedom.
Criticism not intended in asking the question, it just seemed like a lot of dosh, especially in these days of sequestration.
It was actually prompted by reading about the Cessna Scorpion, and Cessna's claim of a $3,000 per hour operating cost.
Yes I know; it's a manufacturer's claim, probably doesn't include any support infrastructure at all and the Scorpion can barely be called a fast jet.
Comparing apples with a very small orange.
But interesting nonetheless.
And great to see that they went from idea to flying prototype in 23 months.
I wonder if you could still do the same thing in the same time frame with a full size, complex fast jet.
1997 to 2000 for the F-35 to go from Boeing/LM downselect to flying demonstrator alone.
Agreed - the sound of freedom.
Criticism not intended in asking the question, it just seemed like a lot of dosh, especially in these days of sequestration.
It was actually prompted by reading about the Cessna Scorpion, and Cessna's claim of a $3,000 per hour operating cost.
Yes I know; it's a manufacturer's claim, probably doesn't include any support infrastructure at all and the Scorpion can barely be called a fast jet.
Comparing apples with a very small orange.
But interesting nonetheless.
And great to see that they went from idea to flying prototype in 23 months.
I wonder if you could still do the same thing in the same time frame with a full size, complex fast jet.
1997 to 2000 for the F-35 to go from Boeing/LM downselect to flying demonstrator alone.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key to the question is, I believe, the MoD Capitation Rates. They are freely accessible from the MoD Intranet but not available (and I'm sure they were) from the Internet.
Perhaps someone who's still in could look them up. They barely qualify as Restricted so no doubt the Daily Mail could supply them.
Perhaps someone who's still in could look them up. They barely qualify as Restricted so no doubt the Daily Mail could supply them.
It's been a while since I looked these things but there used to be 2 sets of figures. One included capitation rates and therefore was outrageously high and even worse for newer aircraft. £30k per hour was a very rough average. The other figure was simple fuel burn costs and obviously much lower.
$24,000 pfh sounds really cheap - as if someone didn't do the figures right!
I remember being told, in 1976, that a Whirlwind cost £1,200 pfh (which was no small fortune then).
I remember being told, in 1976, that a Whirlwind cost £1,200 pfh (which was no small fortune then).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in 2005, one of the Big Hats at HQ AIR stood up and told us, his assembled staff, that 'Air power wasn't very good value for money' and, in comparison to the other two Services, we appeared very expensive indeed. We needed to try and improve that, but also communicate all the valid reasons why air power is more complex and more expensive than people think it should be.
That communication hasn't worked very well and most people still don't get it outside the Light Blue community.
If you think that's a lot of money, look at the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel - the US calculated an 'all up' cost of something like $400 per gallon once fuel was delivered to the front line in Afghanistan. That's just paying for petrol for ground troops!
That communication hasn't worked very well and most people still don't get it outside the Light Blue community.
If you think that's a lot of money, look at the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel - the US calculated an 'all up' cost of something like $400 per gallon once fuel was delivered to the front line in Afghanistan. That's just paying for petrol for ground troops!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much of the high price can easily be explained by using the wrong piece of equipment.
This whole idea of one size fits all missions has crept ever further into the Air Forces of the West and that means, by definition, a very expensive solution.
The whole A10 history just proves again that the powers that be just see no need for a tailor-made, and also cheaper, solution to a very important combat task.
We don't need 1000's of Fighter jets that claim to be all round "aka all things to all men" , we need a more balanced force with less, but better air supremacy fighters, cheaper but more effective CAS and very cheap COIN aircraft for missions against less sophisticated enemies in a controlled airspace.
The savings in commonality lay in the use of similar subsystems in different platforms, engine-cores, avionics (incl sensors etc...), pilot equipment (helmet, O²-gear, ejection seats,...).
The commonality philosophy of 1 fighter for all tasks is just bad economics, penny wise but ultimately pound foolish.
Just look at Afghanistan where F16 and F15 are/where used to do basic CAS which can be done much more effectively by much cheaper aircraft.
Or the French using their RAFALES and M2000 in Central Africa and MALI today, they would be much better of , and certainly also cheaper, with a dozen of real COIN aircraft.
This whole idea of one size fits all missions has crept ever further into the Air Forces of the West and that means, by definition, a very expensive solution.
The whole A10 history just proves again that the powers that be just see no need for a tailor-made, and also cheaper, solution to a very important combat task.
We don't need 1000's of Fighter jets that claim to be all round "aka all things to all men" , we need a more balanced force with less, but better air supremacy fighters, cheaper but more effective CAS and very cheap COIN aircraft for missions against less sophisticated enemies in a controlled airspace.
The savings in commonality lay in the use of similar subsystems in different platforms, engine-cores, avionics (incl sensors etc...), pilot equipment (helmet, O²-gear, ejection seats,...).
The commonality philosophy of 1 fighter for all tasks is just bad economics, penny wise but ultimately pound foolish.
Just look at Afghanistan where F16 and F15 are/where used to do basic CAS which can be done much more effectively by much cheaper aircraft.
Or the French using their RAFALES and M2000 in Central Africa and MALI today, they would be much better of , and certainly also cheaper, with a dozen of real COIN aircraft.
The whole A10 history just proves again that the powers that be just see no need for a tailor-made, and also cheaper, solution to a very important combat task.
Complicated by
Senior military people needing pension enhancement opportunities when they retire,
Politicians needing to ensure funding for manufacturing plants in their state / district,
Manufacturers needing to justify the billions in R&D funding for stuff that will never deliver on its potential after millions invested,
DOD needing even bigger budget to make them seem even more important.
Like getting a committe to design a horse and being happy with the camel.
