thobbesWith regards to air forces they do have national security issues to be concerned with. Albeit NATO and Asian partners will generally follow US lead here so it’s not that critical. Plus most of these countries do not have immediate threats.
For some operators self sufficiency is also an issue, though again not most of the JSF partners (Israel and Japan are probably the only one’s interested in varying levels of self sufficiency. For Turks it’s a learning experience with potential self sufficiency benefits).
Interesting to see how Israelis go with shared maintenance due to unique electronics items. There’s not just a national interest issue here but also a proprietary one – .i.e. Lockheed Martin et al having a good look at what makes the Israeli equipment tick.
EDIT: So assuming similar hours flown and given joint maintenance and overhaul, we can assume that global cost will be around $32,000 per annum per aircraft for all users and excluding salary variations.
So do we have any similar cost estimates for non-US F-16 users? Or any for F/A-18 users?
thobbesApparently even the Eurofighters of the supposedly ground attack tasked JBG31 seldom practice any ground attack missions.
thobbesGiven the Thais brought AV-8S from Spain as well as A-7 Corsair for land based role and also included a ski jump on Chakri Narubet, it was clear that the Navy brought the Chakri Narubet as a full fledged combat carrier and not a disaster relief boat.
People forget this as the AV-8S and A-7 have all been withdrawn from service years ago.
Personally I think the carrier is grand standing, just like the Spaniards and the Italians.
“Look at us, we have an aircraft carrier, we are a power to be reckoned with.”
There were LPDs available in 1990 – e.g. French Foudre class.
thobbesThe main thing is that comparison is roughly apples for apples.
If USAF uses same assumptions for both F-16 and F-35, then that’s fine.
If USAF actually includes anticipated logistical efficiencies for F-35 that are not present with currrent F-16 operations due to USAF mismanagement, then that is actually quite problematic for non-US F-16 users who have more efficient logistic models as they will find F-35 to cost even more than 28% higher than for USAF.
Numerical example:
USAF F-16 Ops = $25,000 per hour
USAF F-35 Ops using improved logistics = $32,000 per hour
Increase of 28% over $25,000 per F-16 hour.
More Efficient Country X F-16 Ops = $20,000 per hour.
More Efficient Country X F-35 Ops (using USAF logistics as per global logistics systems): $32,000 per hour.
Increase of 60% over $20,000 per F-16 hour.
And if anticipated logistics savings aren’t achieved, then that blows the USAF cost even more. Just because the F-35 is technically more efficient to maintain doesn’t mean the USAF and global partners will be more efficient at it due to such nebulous things as organisational culture or that bane of government acquisitions, the poorly written procurement contract.
But then that’s not the F-35’s fault. :highly_amused:
thobbesGiven that the F-35 has a global maintenance and support system all F-35 operators will share in the economies of scale. When it comes to fuel, etc, any operator of a meaningful number of fighters is going to be buying fuel in bulk.
Defnine meaningful numbers?
As for global maintenance, does that mean for example a Japanese F-35 will need to be sent to USA for overhaul/modification?
I can understand joint European overhaul/maintenance facilities as they’ve been doing a lot of joint things such as pilot training and procurement for a long time.
25% is a meaningful increase, but it is not a crippling expense hike and is reasonable in light of the increased capability offered by the F-35.
Sure but it will probably mean less airframes, less pilots and/or lower flight hours with more simulator time.
All of this actually degrades capability.
Replace 50 F-16s with 50 F-35s and you’ve increased capability. Replace 50 F-16s with 36 F-35s and you’ve lost capability even if 36 F-35 = 50 F-16 in a straight fight.
The reason are attrition, geographic coverage, loss of flexibility etc.
The only non-USA F-35 buyers who will truly benefit from F-35 are those intending to replace on 1 for 1 level or close to – in this instance Australia and Norway.
Lower number of pilots results the same.
And if you’ve had to chop a squadron of transports or helos or an infantry unit to fund increased F-35 costs, then you’ve also lost capability.
It is not possible to price aircraft without assumptions. I would not take this most recent cost estimate as a best case scenario. This is the official USAF estimate based on how they anticipate operating the F-35.
Totally agree on assumptions being required. However the key is for costing model to account for as much as possible.
Too often, the assumptions are bad and exclude costs. This is done to make the program look more viable.
The USAF estimate seems far more reliable than General Bogdan’s 10% increase or anything published by Lockheed (or Boeing or Sukhoi or Dassault or any other vendor interested in selling you a product).
thobbesCause in real life, Pakistan is a poor country with big problems and US aide helps keep the government functioning.
thobbesBottom line, using the USAF’s assumptions the F-35 costs roughly 25% more than an F-16, which falls safely into a manageable range for most operators.
Given the way defence budgets have been heading since 1991, 25% is huge. It probably means 25% less flying hours or the equivalent reduction in airframes or some other capability or service such as school or hospital.
And bear in mind USAF will have huge economies of scale thanks to a large fleet (even if it’s in hundreds of aircraft and not thousands). This means greater expertise which in turn leads to greater efficiency as well as buying power for fuel, lubricants, spares etc which means lower prices.
I suspect while the US will have an up to 28% increase in flying costs over F-16, smaller operators will have a much greater increase.
There are a lot of different ways to calculate costs per flight hour. At one extreme you are looking at the cost of fuel, lubricants, tires, and little else. At the other extreme you would include all personnel costs associated with maintenance, facility costs, all spare parts, engine overhaul, necessary pods, etc etc.
As someone who works in government preparing budgets, I much prefer a whole of picture approach than assumption ladden window dressing that assumes away key costs and in the end only serves to promote certain interests.
Too often government services got stung with this kind of window dressing.
A great one is rebuilds of rural hospitals where they didn’t take into account increased cost of running a new facility with increased bathroom and toilet facilities (so going from 25 beds + 5 bathrooms to 25 beds + 13 ensuites).
Or chopping functions to come in under budget and then having to implement chopped functions latter. A great one is ANZAC frigate with “fitted for but not equipped with.”
Hence the whole picture is the better way to go.
After all having an F-35 running estimate come up at 10% greater than an F-16 is completely meaningless if I have to spend a further 18% more in non-accounted costs that are critical to F-35 ops.
Unfortunately many idiot budget planners will take the 10% and then be surprised when their costs blow out – I’ve seen it happen all the time and have been involved in a couple of attempts to fix it up which results in a lot of pain as you try to reign services in to budgeted levels. Very often the overrun just stays as politicians and high level execs are too scared to cut service in case of backlash.
Hence the West is where it is in terms of government spending deficits.
thobbesNot true. Eurofighter replaces Phantom and Tornado IDS in German service. So far no decision on the replacement of Recce and ECR Tornadoes. We are talking about 36-40 aircraft.
As mentioned by Seahawk, once the Tornados are gone, there is no replacement.
No idea what you are trying to say. Both assembly lines are running. SoKo has no requirenment for a local assembly line, they just want it cheap and delivered yesterday. Means German and Spanish assembly line secured for 2-3 years. A good thing in times of crisis. Guess Spain would be happy to offer production slots or even their T3 airframes.
Economies of scale = more you produce the cheaper it gets. Also higher cost for workers = greater cost per aircraft.
Simple economics.
F-35 might be of interest for their carrier, but for everything else Eurofighter subsystems wrapped up in a stealthy airframe is at least an attractive proposal. The carrier so far had no practicle use and serves mostly as harbour ornament. I see why the Thais bought theirs from Spain. :highly_amused:
Agreed on carrier irrelevance. I’d rather 3 frigates than a single carrier.
F-35 itself isn’t exactly cheap to operate. The KF-X would be NATO compatible but with considerably less black boxes and red tape made in USA.
So far “red tape made in USA” is of no consequence to European NATO partners whose military activities are usually NATO/Coalition based.
Red Tape Made In USA more applies to countries that want to use their aircraft against what the Americans perceive as their national interest.
There are no inevitable overruns. The KF-X is a low risk programme. Not that unlike to Gripen and to some extend PAK-FA. They design a new airframe, and avoid most of the issues with subsystem development. The decision is between sticking the guts of a F-18 or an EF into a new airframe. Both have their merits. But I wouldn’t expect the US to buy any KF-X, while I do see reasons for Spain and Germany to buy (a small number) of KF-X.
Has there been a fighter program in last 30 years that hasn’t blown out the budget?
I don’t see any reason for Germany to buy KF-X. They have 140 Eurofighters and as stated Tornados are being phased out.
Spain will need to replace EF-18 so I can see KF-X being brought here, albeit in smaller numbers than current 86 EF-18.
Time is running out for western legacy aircraft in the price bracket of EF or Rafale. Further more, participation in the development of KF-X would preserve skills otherwise lost. In case SoKo go with Typhoon/Cassidian, Cassidian would be responsible for the FCS of the new aircraft.
And the general replacement for western legacy aircraft is F-35. Most small Western European partners will buy F-35. Eastern Europeans will buy second hand 4th generation or scrap fighter fleets altogether.
Also Eurocannards still have some juicy sales potentials in Middle East – Qatari and Kuwaiti eyes are on UAE and whether they chose Rafale or Eurofighter for Mirage 2000 replacement.
Coming back to the requirenments. I can only comment on Germany here, but I do believe there are good reasons to get a 5th generation capability. There are unresolved issues between the baltic states and Russia. Russia is now in the buiseness for it’s own 5th generation fighter.
Germany is involved in baltic air patrol, and has its NATO responsibilites. In case some of many conflicts between the Russian minority (often even without any citizenship !) and the local governments escalate, Germany has an interest to discourage Russian military intervention. (I’m not talking about a full scale war here between NATO and Russia !)
To achieve that politcal goal, Germany should have an answer to PAK-FA. Even if it is only for political willy waving.
NATO itself is a deterrent.
Theoretically a Russian invasion of Lativa or Estonia brings the whole of NATO in.
Germany having 30-40 or even 200 5th generation fighters is not going to stop Russia if they decide to invade the Baltic states.
Germany doesn’t even share any boundaries with Russia so all this talk of deterrence is bizarre.
thobbes5th generation is generally acceptable term on aviation forum. Also the guy called the Eurofighter a 3rd gen aircraft which doesn’t fit the Western level of development where that aircraft is Generation 4.5.
Anyhow, if I was running Argentina defence my first priorities would be maritime patrol, transport and the completely decrepit navy.
thobbesI actually think no two seater is a big mistake for F-35.
As can be seen with a large number of sales these days (F-15SA/SG/K, Su-30 series, F-16D/I, Rafale B, F/A-18F) two seaters are preferred by a lot of air forces especially for strike role. And in past you had Tornado, F-15E, F/A-18D, Mirage 2000D/N etc, SU-24MK, F-4, F-14 etc).
Pilot focuses of flying whilst Weapons Officer focuses on doing the bombing.
In terms of training, you get bang for buck for flying hours as you can have two pilots getting air time at same time. There’s also safety bonuses if a qualified instructor is present.
thobbesI’m actually curious how Poles will do with only 8 LIFT aircraft planned to support a fleet of 80-96 fighters. That’s not a lot of airframes available daily once you take into account maintennance.
Singapore is ordering only about 12 LIFT for a fleet of about 130 fighters, but their PC-21 are far more capable at getting pilots up to an advanced level than Poland’s PZL-130 Turbo Orliks. They also operate F-5 which is handy for LIFT and a large fleet of dual seat F-16Ds (40 out of 62 F-16C/D delivered though large numbers are strike dedicated similar to Israeli F-16D/I in some regards).
Unfortutely JF-17 doesn’t come in dual seat version.
thobbesDidn’t notice that comment.
Personally I think F-35 is fine for US requirements.
In reality lack of significant air to air combat experience or even significant ground attack operations in peer level opposition since at least 1982 and in all reality 1973 means that design of fighters is based more on assumptions than actual known combat requirements.
It’s very reminiscent of tank design in 1930s. No-one knew how war would be fought so you had a whole heap of differing design philosophies. Of course once the shooting started, designs stabilised based on experience.
The same happened in supersonic fighter design in 1950s. It wasn’t until massed conflict in 1960s and early 1970s that actual requirements for combat fighters were defined.
Hence capability of F-35, J-31, Eurocannard, Pak Fa or J-20 is based on more theoretical assumptions unlike F-15/-16/-18/A-10 or MiG-29/Su-27/Su-25 which were all based on actual experience in Vietnam, Middle East and elsewhere.
By capability I’m also including the interaction of other systems – electronic warfare, guided missiles, advanced missiles.
thobbesTransport: KC-390 6
Utility heli: Mi-17 20
Attack Helicopter: Z-19 12
UCAVs: Ch-4 40 (constant guard on the Western front)
Fighter: 80 JF-17 Block II
AWACs: ZDK-03 4
Tanker: KC-390-based 3
trainer: K-8 6, Super Mushak 12, JL-9 6
MPA: EMP-145 MP 8
Have you got enough trainers?
You have an active fleet of about 95 aircraft, yet only 24 trainer aircraft.
Ratios of trainer a/c to active aircraft are quite high in order to maintain reasonable tempos and allow training of adequate crew numbers.
E.g.
Belgium: 74 active aircraft (incl. 59 x F-16A/B). Trainer fleet = 60 a/c (32 SF.260M + 28 Alpha Jet)
Australia: c. 150 a/c (including 95 fighters). Trainer fleet = 100+ (33 Hawk + 65 PC-9 + B350 for multi-engine training). And that doesn’t include privately owned CT-4s used for very early basic training.
thobbesNobody is willing to let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, especially for adversaries willing to wage asymmetrical warfare. So, nukes are not a credible deterrence. But a Storm Shadow in the Ayatollah’s bedroom is.
Given no major global war since 1945, I’d say nukes are a very effective deterrence. Old SAC saying: “Peace is our Profession!”
As for Storm Shadow in Ayatollah’s bedroom, remember Iran has a ton of conventional ballistic missiles, can shut down Straits of Hormuz etc.
As stated deterrence is not just about single systems.
thobbesYes, best deterrence is nukes, period.
Seems forgotten on these boards. Lots of talk of conventional warfare e.g. India-China conflict or Australian submarines but complete disregard of the ultimate deterrence.
Conventional deterrence only really applies in areas where no nukes are present or where conflict is insignificant enough to not warrant a nuclear exchange (e.g. Taiwan) or small border conflicts where most likely even conventional airpower would not be used due to potential for threat escalation.
Sign In
