SUPERHORNET IN TROUBLE!

Well, Program Unit Cost : $ 95.3 million [I am not sure about what is included].

Unit Procurement Cost: $ 78.4 million [the cost if you buy only one].

$53.8 million [for each one of a large number (100+?) purchased on a multi-year procurement contract].

Programme Unit cost includes fixed costs: development, production tooling, etc.

Unit procurement cost is the cost to the Pentagon of each aircraft, including essential equipment, spares, & so on, excluding fixed costs. What is actually paid out by the time the aircraft is in a squadron, ready to go. It does not include weapons or (IIRC) training.

the $53.8 mn “flyaway” cost is for an empty equipped aircraft.

There is huge confusion between these numbers, & comparisons of aircraft A with aircraft B are often done using different definitions.

…
it was 6.6 billion AUD.

No, that’s the estimated cost over 10 years, including weapons & operating costs. The number I gave (2.9 billion AUD) was for the purchase of the aircraft, spares, etc. See –

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/05/australia-to-buy-24-super-hornets-as-interim-gapfiller-to-jsf/index.php#more

I can’t find it now, but there’s an Australian MoD press release floating around somewhere.

The F-35 price seems very reasonable especially vs capability!:D

Well, Program Unit Cost : $ 95.3 million [I am not sure about what is included].

Unit Procurement Cost: $ 78.4 million [the cost if you buy only one].

$53.8 million [for each one of a large number (100+?) purchased on a multi-year procurement contract].

If you look further down the document, you’ll see this:

3. Boeing F/A-18E SUPER HORNET
Program Unit Cost : $ 95.3 million
Unit Procurement Cost: $ 78.4 million
Manufacturer’s comment:
In response to our query, Boeing said that “the fly-away cost of the Super Hornet, under the current, second multi-year procurement contract with the U.S. Navy, is $53.8 million.

Perhaps there are other services under the contract which account for the inflated figure? :confused:

As of Aug 2006 it cost approximately 95 Million for a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and slightly over 100 million for a E/A-18G Growler……………:o

interesting, I was going by a figure I saw on a recent issue of Janes weekly.

The purchase order is $2.9 bn, IIRC – and that’s Australian dollars, so it’s less in USD, & it includes the usual extras.

it was 6.6 billion AUD.

Considering everything and including Boeings recent spin, I am sure their fix already in the works will be good enough. The jet has to go through a depot process anyway, tasks at the depot will be considered when refirbing the aircraft re: the new fix announced. It isn’t as embarrassing as the time when the first batch of production jets needed a barrel replacement after only 500 hours in service. Nothing like testing on the cheap and no REAL prototype process for what was sold to congress as an “upgrade” but was way different enough to justify being a new design compared to the legacy Hornet.

fyaway cost is 59 million actually, 6.6 billion is in Australian money I think, as for the rest, you know the spares, maintenace and stuff like that. You can buy a one dollar American fighter and you are going to end up paying 50 million for it after including the spare, maintenance and training.

As of Aug 2006 it cost approximately 95 Million for a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and slightly over 100 million for a E/A-18G Growler……………:o

I suspect the $6.6 bn AUS figure came from someone adding together everything in the budget proposals with the F/A-18 designation… including the F/A-18A/B center-barrel replacements, etc?

$50 million aircraft’s
What the blazes????? Why are Australia paying $6.6Bill for 24 of these things plus extra then???

The purchase order is $2.9 bn, IIRC – and that’s Australian dollars, so it’s less in USD, & it includes the usual extras.

I thought the canting was to reduce radar signature.

No, the pylon cant was part of the fix for the wing flutter problem! Which, must put a lot of stress on the wings and would explain the current fatigue issues……………….

Well, considering Boeing had to cant the wing plyons on the Super Hornet to avoid flutter during some flight maneuvers. I personally wouldn’t be surprised to see some long term fatigue issues………..Which, can’t help the Overall Performance, Range, and Stealth of the plane.:eek:

I thought the canting was to reduce radar signature.

$50 million aircraft’s
What the blazes????? Why are Australia paying $6.6Bill for 24 of these things plus extra then???

fyaway cost is 59 million actually, 6.6 billion is in Australian money I think, as for the rest, you know the spares, maintenace and stuff like that. You can buy a one dollar American fighter and you are going to end up paying 50 million for it after including the spare, maintenance and training.

$50 million aircraft’s
What the blazes????? Why are Australia paying $6.6Bill for 24 of these things plus extra then???

That’s the total life-cycle cost over 10 or so years.

$50 million aircraft’s
What the blazes????? Why are Australia paying $6.6Bill for 24 of these things plus extra then???

Well, considering Boeing had to cant the wing plyons on the Super Hornet to avoid flutter during some flight maneuvers. I personally wouldn’t be surprised to see some long term fatigue issues………..Which, can’t help the Overall Performance, Range, and Stealth of the plane.:eek:

The article is basically hysterical rantings from ignorant media types, regular rent-a-quotes, and someone who has been on an anti-fighter crusade for years. 😡

Found 4 years ago and confirmed with testing 2 years ago. New production aircraft have the fix already incorporated, and all existing ones are scheduled for modification during scheduled overhaul.

Navy, Boeing Downplay Alleged Super Hornet Problems

U.S. Navy and Boeing officials were quick to respond to a Boston Globe story May 17 that alleged “costly flaws” in Super Hornet strike fighters could cut their lifetime flight hours in half.

“The Boston Globe article has many misstatements,” said Patricia Frost, a spokeswoman for Boeing Naval Systems in St. Louis. “Boeing and the U.S. Navy expect the Super Hornet and the EA-18G to meet or exceed their 6,000-hour design life.”

The Globe story reported that “a mechanism inside the wings of the F/A-18 [E and F] Super Hornet … is wearing out prematurely” — a problem that, if uncorrected, “would drastically shorten the $50 million aircraft’s life span from 6,000 hours to 3,000 hours.”

Boeing and the Navy acknowledged that problems have been found with the aircraft, but said the situation described in the Globe story dates from four years ago. Fixes already have been incorporated into new aircraft and will be retrofitted into older planes, Boeing and the Navy said.

“The U.S. Navy has identified a pylon fitting in the wing of the F/A-18 E and F model Super Hornet where fatigue could potentially shorten the wing’s expected service life and is implementing a corrective measure,” said Chuck Wagner, a spokesman with Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md. “The fitting is part of the lower wing spar and is used to reinforce the area where stores attach to the wing. The potential problem was identified through an engineering analysis in 2003 and subsequent testing in 2005, which are part of our routine risk-mitigation processes for the aircraft’s development. The Navy and Boeing worked together, a fully-funded project is underway, and today every aircraft coming off the production line is being delivered with the solution that corrects for the potential future fatigue. A retrofit solution on those aircraft already in the fleet is planned for 2009 and will correct the identified wing area prior to those aircraft reaching the flight-hour threshold in which fatigue could potentially be experienced. The Navy is confident it has selected the optimal proactive response which in no way compromises the readiness or performance of the aircraft’s mission.”

Asked whether the situation affected new EA-18G Growler electronic countermeasures aircraft — which are all converted on the production line from two-seat F models — Wagner said the problem did “not influence them at all, because the solution is already incorporated into aircraft coming off the production line. The solutions were incorporated before the first G was delivered.”

Fixes and modifications to aircraft in series production are not unusual, Frost said. “They’re part of the normal life of an aircraft,” she said. “If something comes up you go out and fix it in a timely fashion before it becomes a serious issue.”