Just a few points:
It is only useful to assess direct operating costs, as a design cannot be blamed for being operated under special conditions. Apparently the cost of overhead decreases with number of aircraft, so the figures of the USAF can always be assumed as “best” numbers.

What drives cost?
> Fuel: an F-15 burns 4-6 tons of fuel for a 1.5hr training mission.
> Pilot (twin seaters are consequently more expensive)
> Maintenance, separated into
> engine: very big item. Some engines need a shop visit all 500hrs, maybe even more to prevent malfunction, which means each flight hour is charged with 1/500 of an engine removal and overhaul
> avionics: are decreasing per unit as avionics are today normally state-of-the-art electronics, consequently less maintenance required, at the same does the total amount of maintenance increase
> airframe and systems: again, costly item, very depending on the design of the aircraft

I think the largest item is maintenance, and this item is driven by specific design. Complicated system solutions, engines designed on the edge of the physical capabilities of the material technology, cumbersome avionics architecture … everything counts in large amounts.

Older aircraft are not necessarily more expensive.
A used F-16 can be very cost efficient.

The most expensive item normally is cost of ownership and the basic infrastructure (pilot, personnel), the individual aircraft doesn’t really change the big picture and is rather used to sweeten up a business case. While when a Saab Gripen with very reliable F404 engine is pitched versus a Suchoi 30GTI, direct operating costs may be a factor.
An EF-18G costs 10k less per hour? With a design limit of 8000hrs that gonna amount to 80 Million.

I just don’t see the “leap”, as other posters stated, most UAVs are basically RC-aircraft with a camera on it. And that is the biggest application of UAVs: getting intelligence where manned aircraft are too expensive or too vulnerable, and where a man in the inner loop isn’t necessary.
When it comes to strike, we are basically more than a decade away from real “combat” UAVs. At the moment they can fire a missile, but only if no enemy resistance at all is encountered.

UAVs are surely great to build in great numbers, penetrate the enemy airspace and get shot down by Soviet S-400 super missiles. The missiles are more expensive than the UAVs, and after they “killed” some UAVs the missile site is known and can be wiped out or avoided.

I believed that China’s current UAV capability was primarily constrained by the lack of a suitably compact indigenous powerplant?. Has this now been addressed?. If not the ‘leap’ forward outlined is surely more of a ‘hop’?.

Additionally, there is not really any unknown technology involved in UAVs. It is more an operational and infrastructural problem. And I cannot see a worthwhile market that comes close to “conventional” aircraft markets.

B747-400 seem to be plenty these days.
As I expected the B747 will be the primary victim of this crises, and will be replaced by B777 and A380.

With all this talk now about replacing the still very modern Vanguard class alot of very good questions have been asked except if Great Brittian needs to be a nuclear power. I would think it would be better to just let them reach the end of their service lifes and replace with more SSN that have a strike capable VLS system, Or to develope a SSGN instead of SSBN.

Ducks and runs…….

-Philbob

I agree. More important than pouring billions of sterling into questionable deterrent is to maintain conventional capabilities. Most nations (including the one I live in) has no nuclear deterrent and although there are nations that could strike us (actually, it is only Russia) I don’t think one needs it. I do not question nuclear deterrence in general.
But face it: nuclear based ICBMs were developed to have a close to indestructible deterrent. It only works in numbers with several being on patrol, otherwise your opponent might find it and sink your only patrolling submarine. If numbers cannot be provided, skip the whole thing.

At the moment no nation seems to be keen on directly threatening UK or Western Europe in general. China has the theoretical ability, but so has WE (and although China seems to match power, we still have 4-5 times the GDP at one third the number of people). Not having dedicated second strike capability is also a sign towards other nation that this capability is not desperately needed any more. Other nations like Russia or France also feel the financial pressure to maintain these capabilities.

Maybe UK should start a campaign for a treaty that bans ballistic missiles on submarines altogether. Humanity could do without.

To sum it all up:

– if Abkhazia wants independence from Georgia and Shakashvilli shells them, then Russia and Abkhazia are the bad guys and Georgia is good
– if Chechnya wants independence from Russia and Putin shells them, then Russia are the bad guys and Chechnya are the good ones

That depends largely on the type of shells.
NATO for example only procures self-justifying ammunition.
So no matter what you hit, it was rightfully and in full accordance with all international agreements killed/destroyed/missed.
Strange you didn’t know that.

The article simply points to the fact that the 747-8 is not cancelled and that it’s on target for it’s first flight later this year

I talked about the B747-8I, the passenger variant, which

On top of that put the fact that the most likely additional customers (Japanese airlines) are currently virtually bankrupt.

At the moment Boeing is doing a complete program for 105 orders, less than 25 of them for the passenger version, which will require huge additional design and certification effort on top of the freighter. Facing the challenge of cash shortfall in 2010 and huge additional costs in the future for B787-9 development and second production line, I see a big stop sign coming ahead of the -8I.