Costs per flight hour for modern Western F and F/A

[Skybird]

In another thread I briefly mentioned the low operation costs of the Gripen, and when surfing and reading a bit further about the latest developments of that plane, which is anything but dead, I stumbled over this article that refers to analysis done by Janes, comparing the costs for one flight hour of operation of the current Western fighters/fighterbombers, including the F-35.

http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes

The numbers again confirm the outstanding record of the Gripen (4700 dollars 2013 for one operational flight hour), followed by the F-16 with 7000 dollards and the Eurofighter with 8200 doillars. Then comes the Rafale with 16500 dollars and the F/A-18 E/F ranging from 11000 to 24400 dollars (!).

To my surprise the terrible F-35 really hit the jackpot, and has operational costs that set it apart in a league of its own. Its operational costs for one flight hour varies between 21000 and 31000 dollars! And that thing is said to be "modern"...? In other air forces, airframes costing that much money to maintain them, would get phased out! Didnt that air force colonel or general, who claimed it would be treason to defend the A-10, mention that the air force must save money and become more cost-efficient...?

Modernised versions of the Gripen with new avionics, new radar, as well as a carrier-based version and a version without pilot, are being developed. To me it seems as if it gets rewarded a second spring, like the Hornet being turned into the Superhornet. The Gripen is anything but a dead plane!

[ikalugin]

I guess no one is interested in eastern planes such as the T10 series?

[mapuc]

In another thread I briefly mentioned the low operation costs of the Gripen, and when surfing and reading a bit further about the latest developments of that plane, which is anything but dead, I stumbled over this article that refers to analysis done by Janes, comparing the costs for one flight hour of operation of the current Western fighters/fighterbombers, including the F-35.

http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes

The numbers again confirm the outstanding record of the Gripen (4700 dollars 2013 for one operational flight hour), followed by the F-16 with 7000 dollards and the Eurofighter with 8200 doillars. Then comes the Rafale with 16500 dollars and the F/A-18 E/F ranging from 11000 to 24400 dollars (!).

To my surprise the terrible F-35 really hit the jackpot, and has operational costs that set it apart in a league of its own. Its operational costs for one flight hour varies between 21000 and 31000 dollars! And that thing is said to be "modern"...? In other air forces, airframes costing that much money to maintain them, would get phased out! Didnt that air force colonel or general, who claimed it would be treason to defend the A-10, mention that the air force must save money and become more cost-efficient...?

Modernised versions of the Gripen with new avionics, new radar, as well as a carrier-based version and a version without pilot, are being developed. To me it seems as if it gets rewarded a second spring, like the Hornet being turned into the Superhornet. The Gripen is anything but a dead plane!


We have some of the worlds best flight engineers.

And I can't understand WHY the Danish politicians are so keen on buying the F-35.(the next generation after their F-16)

Markus

[NeonSamurai]

I can't see why anyone would be keen on buying the F-35 to be honest.

[Wolferz]

Phase all of them out and go strictly drone.:up:
Yeah, that's the ticket.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

We have some of the worlds best flight engineers.

And I can't understand WHY the Danish politicians are so keen on buying the F-35.(the next generation after their F-16)

Markus

I can't see why anyone would be keen on buying the F-35 to be honest.I'm quite confident that those politicians could not care less how good that plane itself is. Most likely they are keen on buying it to keep Uncle Sam interested on defending their country.

Phase all of them out and go strictly drone.:up:
Yeah, that's the ticket.Right into the day some bored teenager hacks those things control system. :shucks:

[mapuc]

^ Another reason could also be this: Denmark was one of the countries in the Joint venture around the development of the F-35 and therefore they have...agreed on buying so and so many...

Here's another thing, How many of you remember the awful start of the F-15 ?

Markus

[eddie]

And to think we stopped producing the F22 because it was too expensive! So bring on the cheaper F35!:haha:

[Jimbuna]

Anyone know the costs to keep the Harriers flying before we just about gave them away?

[Skybird]

Anyone know the costs to keep the Harriers flying before we just about gave them away?


http://www11.pic-upload.de/09.02.15/noj5p8a12wgt.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-26096198/Unbenannt.jpg.html)

More on the background of those decreasing numbers:

LINK: Transforming logistics support for fast jets (https://books.google.de/books?id=nEzCStAJbZkC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=harrier+costs+for+one+flight+hour&source=bl&ots=kQgmeRezr2&sig=LumtF27NNNCi-FpptWx6J4YC9GE&hl=de&sa=X&ei=ZDvZVMGhCIKvU5iag9AK&ved=0CCAQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=harrier%20costs%20for%20one%20flight%20hour&f=false)

I wonder what variables they put into that calculation. That graph for the later years is hard to believe. Its MoD and thus official numbers, no independent numbers.

[em2nought]

I can't see why anyone would be keen on buying the F-35 to be honest. Manchurian candidates no doubt! :hmm2:

[Stealhead]

I guess no one is interested in eastern planes such as the T10 series?
Well that would be because typically Russian designs tend to cheaper than Western counterparts. With the trade off that typically a Russian design sold for export is inferior to its Russian counterpart. While with Western aircraft in most cases your buying the same product that the US,Swedish, or French air force flys.

In other words you are talking a different argument while Skybird is looking at the operating costs of gen 4 and gen4+ Western multi-role fighters compared to the cost of operating the gen 5 F-35.

[ikalugin]

Sadly this is no longer true, for example Su30MKIs were better than the planes used for domestic customers (such as Su27SM), Su30SM is a direct derivative of the MKI.

The first plane that was procured by domestic customers that was better than the MKI was the Su35S.

Thus if we are looking into recent sales or into future procurement scenarios, T10 series are different from the Soviet MiG29 exports for example.

[Schroeder]

I could imagine that the high costs of the F/A 18 come from it being a carrier aircraft that takes lots of punishment with each landing. That has to reflect in the operating costs somewhere.:hmm2:

[Jimbuna]

http://www11.pic-upload.de/09.02.15/noj5p8a12wgt.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-26096198/Unbenannt.jpg.html)

More on the background of those decreasing numbers:

LINK: Transforming logistics support for fast jets (https://books.google.de/books?id=nEzCStAJbZkC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=harrier+costs+for+one+flight+hour&source=bl&ots=kQgmeRezr2&sig=LumtF27NNNCi-FpptWx6J4YC9GE&hl=de&sa=X&ei=ZDvZVMGhCIKvU5iag9AK&ved=0CCAQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=harrier%20costs%20for%20one%20flight%20hour&f=false)

I wonder what variables they put into that calculation. That graph for the later years is hard to believe. Its MoD and thus official numbers, no independent numbers.

Most interesting Sky.....Danke :up:

[NeonSamurai]

I doubt things will improve like they did for the F-15. The basic premise of the F-35 is deeply flawed with the idea that you can make a VTOL fighter and use the same design for a non VTOL fighter. The whole venture was a boondoggle to begin with, as the only result you can possibly end up with is either an inferior VTOL, or an inferior standard fighter, or both at once. It was also never going to be cheaper to do this, as you are still functionally designing two aircraft.

To be honest though, I've never been impressed with the Harrier either, as it too makes a lot of sacrifices for VTOL (lets be honest, its more STOL when carrying anything) capability where it sacrifices payload, and top speed primarily. Honestly I think the Marines should stick to helicopters and let fixed wing air support be handled by the Air Force or Navy.

[Skybird]

Griii - pen...! Griii - pen...!

Gripen NG takes only 600m of runway for takeoff. And it must not even be ordinary runway. a road, even a frozen piece of mud, even levelled grass is sufficient. And this although it has an additional payload capacity of +1000 kg, and an additional 1400 liter of kerosine.

Oh, and it is supercruise-capable.

Perfect for replacing the Harrier for the Marines.

The first Gripens probably were the most modern fighters at the time when they were introduced. The Gripen NG again is amongst the best of the best since its introduction 6 years ago.

The F-16 is no longer in production, and the Gripen has only one engine compared to the two of the Rafale and Eurofighter, thats why it is cheaper. It currently has no direct competitor in its class on the world market.

[mapuc]

Griii - pen...! Griii - pen...!

Gripen NG takes only 600m of runway for takeoff. And it must not even be ordinary runway. a road, even a frozen piece of mud, even levelled grass is sufficient. And this although it has an additional payload capacity of +1000 kg, and an additional 1400 liter of kerosine.

Oh, and it is supercruise-capable.

Perfect for replacing the Harrier for the Marines.

The first Gripens probably were the most modern fighters at the time when they were introduced. The Gripen NG again is amongst the best of the best since its introduction 6 years ago.

The F-16 is no longer in production, and the Gripen has only one engine compared to the two of the Rafale and Eurofighter, thats why it is cheaper. It currently has no direct competitor in its class on the world market.

You were faster than I was.

Was thinking of write that in this thread.

You forgot one thing though...it can supercruise without using the afterburner

The other stuff you wrote-Landing on grass etc only need 600 M on land and take off.

You know Skybird I have since the first announcement about this plane-been following the process-From political to to where it is today.
Read about it on several occasion in Swedish magazine like-Dagens Industri, Ingenjören and Flygnytt and newspaper and of course TV-news.(that was before I got a computer and Internet)

So you understand why I once wrote-I know how fast it takes when a ground crew refuel, rearm or reload a Gripen-Let say to ASUW or SEAD(on exercises) That is why I can't understand why it takes 6 hours in USA(exercise or war(simulations game))

Can land on road-that made me think of a funny thing. A friend from an another country once asked me how many airfield we had in Sweden

I asked him-Peace time or wartime?

Is there a different?

Ohh yes in peace time we have a few-In war time we have thousands

Earlier in this thread I wrote that we have the best flight engineers in the world- And we do that-They maneged to fulfill the demands the politicians gave them when they placed the order on this Gripen.

I just can't understand why Denmark didn't choosed that plane-Gripen was one of the candidate in the race for Denmark's next generation of fighter jets.

So yes JAS39 Gripen is a fantastic fighter jet.

Markus

[Skybird]

Here are more and very different numbers, for example it lists the F-16 with three times as high costs. Obviously one would need to know what kind of rtesources and variables are calculated for the final numbers, there seem to be different calculation methods.

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

The high costs for the Osprey surprise me (or not). Even if by design its engine technology is more complex, a modern aircraft one would expect to be optimized for easy maintenance and thus lower costs. The hig costs for the F-15 must be due to its age and wear and tear of systems and airframes. The costs for the F-22 are once again questioning the wisdom to go with such super-expensive and super-complicated platforms. The record for the F-22 with so many groundings and low readiness marks, is not really impressive.

I would like to see such numbers for Russian-operated planes.

[Stealhead]

I'd say with the F-15 it is now the cost of keeping them operational of course it has always been a high cost airframe due to its avionics especially the radar. At least with the F-15 it was destined as strictly an air superiority fighter. Not counting the F-15E which was really designed to replace the F-111(though comparably it is inferior to what a late model 111 could do).

Mulitrole is an interesting concept the draw back is it can never be the master of one single role there's always a compromise. Therefore at least for larger nations I think that they should never operate only multirole aircraft and have no purpose built masters of one role airframes.(F-15,A-10,F-111)

The F-35 is supposed to be a Swiss Army knife of the air. Thing is you simply can't engineer an airframe that can truly do that which is not a complete compromise.

[mapuc]

After have read the article Skybird provide us with I'm convinced that the future war in the sky will be done by drones and where the pilot will be sitting in some bunker far from the battle.

Markus

[Stealhead]

Indeed that is they way things are headed. Just think the costs you save with a drone you have no need for the life support and egress systems that a manned aircraft needs. All that is a good deal of space and weight freed up.

[Skybird]

Drones.
AI.
Swarm AI.

:-?

LINK-LINK-LINK (http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Decision-Daniel-Suarez/dp/0451417704/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423619827&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=suarez+kill+deciison) Good for holidays.

1 There are not few scientists claiming that biological intelligence always sooner or later will move itself onto or into machine-based hardware. They compare biological intelligence with larva stadiums of intelligence development, and the shift to mechanical intelligence as the (first of several?) metamorphosis.

2 Others say that machine intelligence sooner or later will wipe out biological intelligence.

3 Tech companies claim that machine intelligence is all harmless and will only serve us well.

I think it will be a blend of 1 and 2, and only a little bit of 3. I am not hostile to technology, but I am hostile to blind naivety and blind optimism regarding technology.

And then there are history-biologists claiming that modern man is less intelligent than people ages ago, because today there is less need for us needing to use our braisn to solve problems of immediate survival survival. Like a less trained muscle, the intellect degenerates although the overall knowledge grows. From an evolution theory POV, that is far less absurd a claim than at first listening it seems to be.

Which means we may shift a more and more stupid intelligence into and onto machines. And finally end up with - dumb machines...?! :88) Seems we are turning in a circle. Maybe we just should let it be. :haha:

[Oberon]

Ah, but what about 4?

We merge with the machines. Let's face it, there's no way in hell a standard human will be able to keep up with an equivalent machine unless the human upgrades itself to keep ahead of the curve. Where our biological bodies fail we will be able to turn to a new body which will last forever, or discard the body altogether and exist as electrical code within a computer network.

I maintain that the next fifty years of computer technology will begin to see the introduction of biological components into computers as standard. Never mind metal lines on circuitboards, neurons in plastic wrapping will be able to transmit a massive amount of more data and millions of times faster.
Just think how much process goes into the simple matter of catching a ball, your brain has to calculate ballistic trajectory and intercept point, then it has to input the correct impulses to make your arm and hand move into that intercept point for you to catch the ball. All in the space of microseconds. Computers are close, but take a lot more effort to come to similar conclusions...and sometimes, well...

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/873/579/f25.gif

(To be fair, myself and most of the England squad are at a similar level of competency as that robot)

2016, bookmark that date, the worlds first bionic Olympics are due to take place...should be an interesting showcase of what we have and what we're going to have soon:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26766095

[Stealhead]

I want my enemies to have this AI.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R9nr0rXVZko

[Oberon]

I want my enemies to have this AI.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R9nr0rXVZko

:har::har:

I believe Michio Kaku once referred to the intelligence level of Asimo as being that of a 'lobotomised retarded cockroach'.

[ikalugin]

To get the thread back on track - Russia sells Su30SMs (MKI derivative) to Kazahstan for wooping 19 million USD a piece.

[Skybird]

Ah, but what about 4?

Your 4 is one possible form for my 1. ;)

[Tango589]

To get the thread back on track - Russia sells Su30SMs (MKI derivative) to Kazahstan for wooping 19 million USD a piece.
Getting off track again, Asimo always looks like he's pooped himself when he walks.

Anywho, back on track...

[Schroeder]

The F-16 is no longer in production
Is it? Lockheed Martin doesn't seem to know that.:hmm2:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f16.html

[Oberon]

Your 4 is one possible form for my 1. ;)

True, and thus the eradication of biological life will come less as an aggressive action undertaken by machine against man, but as a choice undertaken by man to transcend the limits of his being.
One could argue that since our spark is electrical in nature, through the impulses in the brain and nerves then transferring that into a network is a form of ascension. :hmmm:

Anyway, yeah, we're not just getting off topic, we've gone so far off topic we're almost back on it again... :dead:

[mapuc]

Little off topic

Had once a vision where I saw a stealth ship half the side of a carrier and half the height it was filled with tubes who was placed in a angle of 45-65 degrees(could not really see) In each of these tube there was a Drone with a certain load outs(AWW, SEAD, ASUW or Air-to-Ground)

I saw the tops on some of the tubes flew of and some kind of recyll throw/pushed the drone into the air-right after it had left the tube the small wings on the drone evolved and the engine started and after a while I saw a group of drones flying away.

End of off topic

Markus

[Jimbuna]

The F-16 is no longer in production, and the Gripen has only one engine compared to the two of the Rafale and Eurofighter, thats why it is cheaper. It currently has no direct competitor in its class on the world market.

Is it? Lockheed Martin doesn't seem to know that.:hmm2:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f16.html

Currently, we are two years into the development of the new F-16 Viper configuration, commonly referred to as the F-16V, which is available as a new production program or as an upgrade program for our customer’s existing fleets

Our highly skilled workforce, long-term knowledge of suppliers, design and integration expertise, and ownership of critical development and integration facilities enable us to execute the most affordable production, upgrade and modernization programs – now and for the next 40 years.

Looks like the old girl may have a lot of life in her yet.

The B-52 for example has been around since 1955.

[Skybird]

Googling around a bit, I got contradicting data. Some sources say the F-16 went out of production in 2009, others say in 2011, and then it is said that it will be in production until at least 2017 or 2018.

Obviously I believed it gets no longer produced.

Can't say now what is true.

BTW, German Wikipedia says the Southafrican air force says one flight hour of its Gripens costs 10,000 dollars (not 4,000).

Maybe we should have this thread deleted, all that number mumbojumbo seems to be worth nothing...

[Stealhead]

I wonder one could split hairs when it comes to aircraft production. Do you consider a considerable upgrade as production? I would argue yes. For example the A-10Cs in addition to all of the avionics they also had the wing spars rebuilt so the airframes where actually taken apart. So in my mind a considerable upgrade is production in fact during the process the airframe is no longer under the custodianship of its assigned unit and when completed it is checked and accepted in again.

As you said though the numbers can be mumbo jumbo. I know that the Air Force thinks in terms of overall reliability and readiness of a unit. Some planes just operate better than others this seems to have been the case sense WWI. Any cost per hour is going to be an estimate. An aircraft that is at its home base will have the best cost ratio that same aircraft while deployed the cost will actually go up as only vital maintainence work is performed then. Therefore once the airframe comes back from deployment it will receive all the best TLC again so that cost changes.

Even in my old field of ground support when deployed we no longer performed the phase inspections as again limited supply of equipment can't pull something off the ready line unless it need dire repair. Without ground power no air power.

[mapuc]

Toke a look on this F-16 Viper. It's just another upgrade. UAE have bought the new version F-16 E/F Block 60/61

Markus

[Stealhead]

I'm pretty certain that last brand new F-16s where built in the mid 90's. At least with USAF aircraft you can tell its age by the serial number the first two digists are the year the aircraft was built(production started for some this may take over a year). Like this 72-1450 is an F-111F that saw action during Desert Storm.


Edit:
You can even look up DOD(USAF simply uses the same) serials for example the last F-16 procured for the USAF was 01-7053
http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/serials-and-inventory/airforce/USAF/2491/http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/serials-and-inventory/
http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/serials-and-inventory/