Low Cost Combat Aircraft - are they really feasible ?
Thread Starter
Low Cost Combat Aircraft - are they really feasible ?
Bit of a ramble - so bear with me.
One area of military aviation that has always fascinated me is the increasing cost of developing, building, and supporting modern combat aircraft. With aircraft like the Gripen now representing the "low" end of the advanced combat aircraft market at an estimated $70m per unit and even an F-16 rolling in at around $80m depending on the support package, costs are spiraling, let's not even get started on the true unit cost of a Typhoon or an F-35.
One aircraft I have studied in some detail is the De Havilland Venom, a diminutive 1950s era fighter that in spite of a price tag that at today's prices would likely not find you a seat in a new Cessna yet was still capable of flying 1,000 miles unrefuelled, able to climb to 55,000 feet, and haul thousand pound weapons into combat. Such was the low cost of this aircraft that many of the final FB.4 variant were literally lifted over airfield perimeters by crane and dumped unceremoniously on scrap piles after just a couple of years service. They were seen as disposable.
I found an obscure analysis document a few years ago that listed the original unit cost of several aircraft converted to today's prices, and one that stuck in my mind was the A-4C Skyhawk analysis that priced out at just north of $2m today - and that for an aircraft with relatively modern(ish) equipment. Today we have aircraft like the Textron AirLand Scorpion - a sort of low cost A-10 made from off-the-shelf components and designed for those dirty wars that pilots in Africa and South America have so much experience of. The Scorpion appears to be the spiritual successor to aircraft like the Strikemaster and the A-37 Dragonfly and yet it still carries with it a unit cost of around $20m. An honorable mention also goes out to the Chinese/Pakistan JF-17 Thunder with its estimated $28m price tag.
So is it feasible to build a viable combat aircraft for $10m, or even $5m ? I know there are many, many variables - what type of combat aircraft, how many would you build, and for what mission - not to mention the fact that we now have guided weapons that cost a million dollars or more per unit. Then of course there is the question of finding pilots willing to fly such aircraft.
The aircraft this question brings to mind are types such as the SIAI Marchetti Warrior, the old A-1E Skyraider, the proposed Stavatti SM-27 (projected to cost $15m each), and the Super Tucano (at around $12m each). So do they now define the "low-point" and is it even feasible to try and define a low-point or are we effectively forced into buying larger, more technologically complex and therefore more expensive combat aircraft for any given mission. Finally, is there any technology in the pipeline that could dramatically reduce the cost and complexity of combat aircraft design and manufacture or is the era of truly low-cost combat aircraft at an end ?
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
One area of military aviation that has always fascinated me is the increasing cost of developing, building, and supporting modern combat aircraft. With aircraft like the Gripen now representing the "low" end of the advanced combat aircraft market at an estimated $70m per unit and even an F-16 rolling in at around $80m depending on the support package, costs are spiraling, let's not even get started on the true unit cost of a Typhoon or an F-35.
One aircraft I have studied in some detail is the De Havilland Venom, a diminutive 1950s era fighter that in spite of a price tag that at today's prices would likely not find you a seat in a new Cessna yet was still capable of flying 1,000 miles unrefuelled, able to climb to 55,000 feet, and haul thousand pound weapons into combat. Such was the low cost of this aircraft that many of the final FB.4 variant were literally lifted over airfield perimeters by crane and dumped unceremoniously on scrap piles after just a couple of years service. They were seen as disposable.
I found an obscure analysis document a few years ago that listed the original unit cost of several aircraft converted to today's prices, and one that stuck in my mind was the A-4C Skyhawk analysis that priced out at just north of $2m today - and that for an aircraft with relatively modern(ish) equipment. Today we have aircraft like the Textron AirLand Scorpion - a sort of low cost A-10 made from off-the-shelf components and designed for those dirty wars that pilots in Africa and South America have so much experience of. The Scorpion appears to be the spiritual successor to aircraft like the Strikemaster and the A-37 Dragonfly and yet it still carries with it a unit cost of around $20m. An honorable mention also goes out to the Chinese/Pakistan JF-17 Thunder with its estimated $28m price tag.
So is it feasible to build a viable combat aircraft for $10m, or even $5m ? I know there are many, many variables - what type of combat aircraft, how many would you build, and for what mission - not to mention the fact that we now have guided weapons that cost a million dollars or more per unit. Then of course there is the question of finding pilots willing to fly such aircraft.
The aircraft this question brings to mind are types such as the SIAI Marchetti Warrior, the old A-1E Skyraider, the proposed Stavatti SM-27 (projected to cost $15m each), and the Super Tucano (at around $12m each). So do they now define the "low-point" and is it even feasible to try and define a low-point or are we effectively forced into buying larger, more technologically complex and therefore more expensive combat aircraft for any given mission. Finally, is there any technology in the pipeline that could dramatically reduce the cost and complexity of combat aircraft design and manufacture or is the era of truly low-cost combat aircraft at an end ?
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Cheap and less capable can be a good strategy as long as it takes into account that you would need more of them to be effective. A comparison would be the European tank battles of the second world war.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that if you got a small group of pilots, engineers and designers together in a country with few barriers to testing and the willingness to certify aircraft on the mil register etc. then a lot could be achieved for a lot less than $12million a piece.
Pick some sort of light aircraft and start fitting sensors and weapons.
Question is what do you want to achieve? CAS with no air threat pretty much anything would do, maybe a UAV would be better otherwise DAS adds a fair bit (but is cheaper than buying a new plane and training a new pilot).
If you want to start pulling g and beating something else in a A-A fight then I think that it would start to get expensive e.g alpha jet, L-59 etc.
Who wants to buy them though? - a friend back from Africa said
"you can't get a big kickback on a cheap contract."
Pick some sort of light aircraft and start fitting sensors and weapons.
Question is what do you want to achieve? CAS with no air threat pretty much anything would do, maybe a UAV would be better otherwise DAS adds a fair bit (but is cheaper than buying a new plane and training a new pilot).
If you want to start pulling g and beating something else in a A-A fight then I think that it would start to get expensive e.g alpha jet, L-59 etc.
Who wants to buy them though? - a friend back from Africa said
"you can't get a big kickback on a cheap contract."
It's said that when buying a part for an aircraft you have to add a nought onto the price (I.E. a perfectly functional switch that would cost, say, £25, would cost £250). This is mainly down to certification / traceability costs (plus no doubt, profiteering).
The other big factor is scope change. A fortune is spent on designing something which is subsequently binned. All those costs need to be recovered and add to the final price.
So, if the aircraft was built to the original spec and the legislative requirements were eased, then yes, I'm sure that a cheaper aircraft can be built.
Not going to happen though, as the aircraft manufacturers are past masters at prompting scope change and inflating prices. Plus recruiting senior members of the armed forces to make sure it stays that way...
The other big factor is scope change. A fortune is spent on designing something which is subsequently binned. All those costs need to be recovered and add to the final price.
So, if the aircraft was built to the original spec and the legislative requirements were eased, then yes, I'm sure that a cheaper aircraft can be built.
Not going to happen though, as the aircraft manufacturers are past masters at prompting scope change and inflating prices. Plus recruiting senior members of the armed forces to make sure it stays that way...
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quickest way to reduce the unit cost would be to remove the pilot. Drones on steroids will be the way of the future, you can have numerous units, and no aircrew at risk.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Venom had good range and payload in your example and comparable speed and altitude to contemporary opponents. Your Tucano example comes nowhere close and that is the rub.
Where there is only a small difference between types then numbers count. Today your Mach 2 penetrator could just blow through a swarm of cheap and cheerful unless they had modern weapons.
Where there is only a small difference between types then numbers count. Today your Mach 2 penetrator could just blow through a swarm of cheap and cheerful unless they had modern weapons.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the Cessna Scorpion will answer this question. That airplane is, as you pointed out, (relatively) cheap both to buy and to operate, provides pretty good capability, and is entirely privately funded and developed. Kind of like Northrop's privately developed N-156 which turned into the F-5 Tiger, which was (relatively) cheap to buy and operate. Let's see if the Scorpion sells the way the F-5 did.
The quickest way to reduce the unit cost would be to remove the pilot. Drones on steroids will be the way of the future, you can have numerous units, and no aircrew at risk.
That may change in the future when UAVs do truly become autonomous, but not for many years yet (if at all).
Aircrew risk is another matter entirely, but there of plenty of young men and women (and some not so young) willing to take the chance.
It is the decades old high-low mix debate. First world nations have swung mostly to the high mix as it guarantess the best tools for any peer, or neer peer conflict. IF you knew your were going to be in decades of a low intensity war more of a low mix would indeed have been a good investment, but few have been willing to take that gamble. Squadrons of low aircraft would be fodder in a high intensity conflict. So we end up swatting flys with million dollar sledgehammers, because that is the tool we have.
Hindsight is much clearer, and at least in the USA we have seemed to need to re-learn the low lesson time and time again. We needed mudmovers in Korea, A-1s'/O-2's/Broncos/Mohawks/A-37s/AT-28s etc. in Vietnam/SE Asia, and could have still used something similar in SOME of today's fights.
I would like to see more emphasis on a low mix. A few squadrons of a modern turboprop or Scorpion type makes sense to me. I see no reason to not believe that we will continue to see lower intensity conflict.
I am also somewhat of a cynic on the military/industrial complex at least in the USA. Low cost, low number programs are more difficult to get congressional support. They involve less suppliers & create fewer jobs in fewer congressional districts and much less profit. "Gold plating" is also common as more comittees add nice to have requirements. Sad but true.
Could you build something cheaper? Sure you could. Whether you have the military and political support to do so is the question.
Hindsight is much clearer, and at least in the USA we have seemed to need to re-learn the low lesson time and time again. We needed mudmovers in Korea, A-1s'/O-2's/Broncos/Mohawks/A-37s/AT-28s etc. in Vietnam/SE Asia, and could have still used something similar in SOME of today's fights.
I would like to see more emphasis on a low mix. A few squadrons of a modern turboprop or Scorpion type makes sense to me. I see no reason to not believe that we will continue to see lower intensity conflict.
I am also somewhat of a cynic on the military/industrial complex at least in the USA. Low cost, low number programs are more difficult to get congressional support. They involve less suppliers & create fewer jobs in fewer congressional districts and much less profit. "Gold plating" is also common as more comittees add nice to have requirements. Sad but true.
Could you build something cheaper? Sure you could. Whether you have the military and political support to do so is the question.
I am also somewhat of a cynic on the military/industrial complex at least in the USA. Low cost, low number programs are more difficult to get congressional support. They involve less suppliers & create fewer jobs in fewer congressional districts and much less profit. "Gold plating" is also common as more comittees add nice to have requirements. Sad but true.
Could you build something cheaper? Sure you could. Whether you have the military and political support to do so is the question.
Could you build something cheaper? Sure you could. Whether you have the military and political support to do so is the question.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Sun Zu etc, true. 4Greens, not knowing the Venom I accepted the OP. The Meatbox I flew in did 0.69 IIRC and 390. In the early 50s the Canberra made most fighters of the day obsolete.
The V-bombers did much the same for many high performance interceptors; it was the missile threat that caused the change to low level.
The V-bombers did much the same for many high performance interceptors; it was the missile threat that caused the change to low level.
Thread Starter
The Venoms I flew couldnt make 55000 ft ever.
Just for reference then - TG278 the Ghost trials Vampire for the Venom program took the world altitude record on 23rd March 1948 at 59,446 feet, albeit with tweaked wings.
De-fanged Venoms WG265 and WG275 were tested at 52,500ft for the high altitude reconnaissance role with clearance to 55,000 ft depending on fuel load (but not actually tested) - this was still deemed to be inadequate for service use and a subsequent plan for the Venom to achieve 60,000 ft with modified wingtips was shelved. (Watkins page 41).
I'm sure that in service with tip tanks, cannons etc the Venom couldn't get anywhere near that. But forgive me for quoting max performance numbers - I'm something of a Venom fanboy for reasons that aren't important here. I'll see if I can find some additional references but hopefully the above suffices.
Of more interest and of more relevance to this topic - the 1953 cost of a new production Venom in full combat spec was....£23,425 (Watkins p.13) which was cheap even by 1953 standards and approximately £600,000 at today's prices. Food for thought, build a Venom for 600k....anyone got any spare starter cartridges.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Fonsini, similarly I believe a Wellington got to 42,000 ft; it wasn't going anywhere.
Perhaps low cost combat aircraft are possible in countries which are too poor and desperate to waste money on anything else.?
e.g. I understand (could be wrong) that helmet mounted sights were first tried out by the South African Airforce - trying desperately to find a way to make their Mirages match up to MiG-23s. They also came up with the Cheetah although perhaps the Israelis are really more responsible for that? Maybe it is just a Kfir with an SA badge - I don't know.
On the ground the Rhodesians pretty well invented mine resistant vehicles starting with the "pookie" which was built from an elongated VW beetle chassis with formula-3 racing tyres. Not exactly high cost - because there was no way it could possibly be high cost or they would never have been able to have it.
I am sure that the SAAF and the Rhodesians would have preferred to have lots of money and no sanctions so they could go out and buy high quality products off the shelf of course.
e.g. I understand (could be wrong) that helmet mounted sights were first tried out by the South African Airforce - trying desperately to find a way to make their Mirages match up to MiG-23s. They also came up with the Cheetah although perhaps the Israelis are really more responsible for that? Maybe it is just a Kfir with an SA badge - I don't know.
On the ground the Rhodesians pretty well invented mine resistant vehicles starting with the "pookie" which was built from an elongated VW beetle chassis with formula-3 racing tyres. Not exactly high cost - because there was no way it could possibly be high cost or they would never have been able to have it.
I am sure that the SAAF and the Rhodesians would have preferred to have lots of money and no sanctions so they could go out and buy high quality products off the shelf of course.
Wasn't the Folland Gnat originally designed for that purpose? Built I believe to meet the 1952 Operational Requirement OR.303 calling for a light weight fighter.
The powers that be changed their minds however. It did go on to have some combat success in the Indian Air force.
The powers that be changed their minds however. It did go on to have some combat success in the Indian Air force.