PPRuNe Forums - Tornado Replacement

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)

- - Tornado Replacement (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/572163-tornado-replacement.html)

"...I expect the UK might look into hanging onto the coat tails of that."

We've never bought any bomber from the US after the B-29 - no B47, B52, B58, F111 (close shave), B1 or B2. Odlly they bought the Canberra from us.......

I guess they are too expensive, there are technology isssues (certainly on the B2) and the roles are different

My guess would be that any future government, especially the current one, is likely to inform us that they've just delivered a very generous SDSR and that they are buying F-35, which is supposed to keep dropping bombs for decades to come. They may also ask why, if the MoD wants a new bomber, are they paying for the new wonder jet and why is so much money being spent on expanding Typhoon capability?

I don't think they would see the logic for a new bomber. In any case, its traditional to wait until the old bombers are defunct and on the point of being scrapped (if not after they have been scrapped) before looking for something new.

F-15 Silent Eagle built as a risk-shared development partnered by Boeing and an EU consortium?

F-15G Schlamm-Henne - 'G' for 'Germany! (For those who remember 1974!)

I guess 'Schlammigen Adler' might not go down too well...:eek:

Heathrow Harry - no, we didn't but that doesn't mean we won't in the future. As we know, times are a-changing and development costs are astronomical. Anyway, I only said we might look into it...

The German musings, back in the day:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...20-%201610.PDF

I'm with CC, bring on the Buccaneer with new systems (but I might be biased) :ok:

It reminds me of 3 decades ago, in parallel with the then EAP program, the then MBB proposed the JF90 ,

cheers
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psqtgcrmhz.jpg

Rafale would be a good complement to Typhoon.

The only modification the Luftwaffe made to their Tonka fleets was to re-fuel them. I think this is the German response to UAV development as they probably want to grow their own expertise in the field, rather like they did with Taurus and Iris-T.

A whole aircraft programme is ambitious though, but while the UK piles money into housebuilding, failing to provide apprenticeships for future UK brickies, the Luftwaffe will be churning aerospace engineers through university and TechnischeSchule to support this programme. And all funded by their 1.5% of GDP NATO contribution.

"Harry - no, we didn't but that doesn't mean we won't in the future. As we know, times are a-changing and development costs are astronomical. Anyway, I only said we might look into it..."

I'm sure the SO's in the RAF would love to buy a state-of-art US penetration bomber but you hit the nail on the head - development costs are through the roof and even the USAF can't afford the aircraft they spec.

The B2 cost $2 Bn per aircraft and costs $135k an hour to run

The UK Defence Budget is around £ 38 Bn a year ...........

Well, I rekon we have had a "US" Bomber with the AV-8B.;) F-35 is a similar multi-role airframe. Don't think we will ever get another strategic "bomber", this side of a World-order meltdown.:oh:

OAP

Quote:

The B2 cost $2 Bn per aircraft

It cost $2 billion to build each aircraft, or that's the total programme cost divided by the number of aircraft built? Genuine question.

quick question regarding a German/European developed new aircraft.

given the fun and games that have occured with German pissing about in both the Typhoon and A400M programmes, would anyone have any interest whatsoever in getting involved?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cokecan (Post 9220059)

I think you make a very important point. In terms of programme and cost risk, multi-nation JVs can be severely impacted by political change - as we have seen. I wonder if the Germans are courting partnerships from the Eastern side of Europe, rather than the usual suspects.

Quote:

I wonder if the Germans are courting partnerships from the Eastern side of Europe, rather than the usual suspects.

Perhaps, but the East Europeans might take exception to it being called 'Stuka II'... :}

"It cost $2 billion to build each aircraft, or that's the total programme cost
divided by the number of aircraft built? Genuine question."

Programe cost but that's what the taxpayer has to shell out so thats the critical number for National Budgets etc

Some other (VERY LARGE) numbers:-

In 1996 the Clinton administration,authorized the conversion of a 21st bomber, a prototype test model, to Block 30 fully operational status at a cost of nearly $500 million.

In 1995, Northrop made a proposal to the USAF to build 20 additional aircraft with a flyaway cost of $566 million each.

In 1996, the General Accounting Office (GAO) disclosed that the USAF's B-2 bombers "will be, by far, the most costly bombers to operate on a per aircraft basis", costing over three times as much as the B-1B (US$9.6 million annually) and over four times as much as the B-52H (US$6.8 million annually).

In September 1997, each hour of B-2 flight necessitated 119 hours of maintenance in turn. Comparable maintenance needs for the B-52 and the B-1B are 53 and 60 hours respectively for each hour of flight. Maintenance costs are about $3.4 million a month for each aircraft.

The total "military construction" cost related to the program was projected to be US$553.6 million in 1997 dollars. The cost to procure each B-2 was US$737 million in 1997 dollars, based only on a fleet cost of US$15.48 billion.

The procurement cost per aircraft as detailed in GAO reports, which include spare parts and software support, was $929 million per aircraft in 1997 dollars.

The total program cost projected through 2004 was US$44.75 billion in 1997 dollars. This includes development, procurement, facilities, construction, and spare parts.

The total program cost averaged US$2.13 billion per aircraft. The B-2 cost up to $135,000 per flight hour to operate in 2010, which is about twice that of the B-52 and B-1.

http://www.pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/08/03.xls

For anyone interested in Air Force's Total Ownership Cost, costs per flight per hour, up to 2013.

Shockingly expensive MV-22...

A very interesting set of numbers........ But over the last year the RAF's most expensive types per flying hour are both gliders !

Honest question A and C, where can I get those sort of numbers from please?

OAP

Quote:

The Air Force maintains a data base on the cost to operate and support its aircraft. It's called the "AFCAP" database which is a part of the Air Force's Total Ownership Cost (AFTOC) program. It is available on public request from the Air Force Comptroller's office. Data from the 2013 version of the AFCAP database, the latest available, is at the POGO website here.

We have worked with this annually available data for the last few years, using it for analysis, reports and articles. While it has not been yet verified by an independent audit by an outsider like GAO, it is the most comprehensive data available on the operating and support costs for Air Force aircraft. It includes all known Air Force costs to keep its aircraft operating, as well as contractor supplied logistics and services. One variation of the cost estimates, known as "Ownership" cost, even includes the cost to modify aircraft with upgrades.

Chuck Hagel's A-10 Legacy
Jan 2014.

I've not found a newer version or the original source of the XLS. Presumably, you could request it from here?

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/questions/index.asp

Figures are averages. Some Wings of the f-16 cost twice as much as others, with the KC-135 its 3x

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...AND_TR1275.pdf