The S-word is coming up. $50B has to be pulled from the U.S. DOD budget every year. Maybe more as budget reality comes home to roost. And, our USAF has many aircraft that are just too expensive to fly. So much so that the service should seriously consider how it wants to support each of its flying missions: training, airlift, tankers, helos, special mission/special purpose, close air support, long-range bombing, ISR, and fighters. Given the money to be saved, I would add a new mission: air policing. This would be at-home air defense to responded to non-traditional military threats. Do we really need a 5-figure cost per flying hour jet to push a Cessna out of the way?
USAF aircraft costs per flying hour are astronomical. I would propose that “6th-generation” if it is ever a term to be used for next-generation aircraft, implies that they are economical to operate.
Below are a sample of some of the aircraft in the USAF inventory and their cost per flying hour for 2010 and 2011. The figures read as: Name of the aircraft / 2010 cost per flying hour / 2011 cost per flying hour. Figures are rounded up.
Fighters
A-10/$19k/$17k
F-15C/$37k/$40k
F-15E/$30k/$28k
F-16C/$20k/$21k
F-22/$57k/$105k
Tankers
KC-135R/$19k/$17k
KC-10/$20k/$21k
Airlift
C-130H/$19k/$19k
C-130J/$12k/$12k
C-17/$20k/$22k
C-5B/$50k/$57k
Long Range Bomber
B-1/$65k/$61k
B-2/$146k/$150k
B-52/$76k/$63k
ISR
E-3/$46k/$41k
E-8/$46k/$46k
U-2/$28k/$33k
Special-ops/Special-purpose
AC-130H/$33k/$26k
AC-130U/$49k/$46k
E-4/$159/$177k
EC-130H/$29k/$28k
EC-130J/$14k/$15k
CV-22B/$80k/$73k
Helicopters
HH-60G/$19k/22k
UH-1N/$11k/$11k
Training
T-38C/$7k/$8k
T-6/$2k/$2k
For fighters, I suggest we retire all F-15C/D's. We don't need their capability at that money per hour. I have seen the F-15 PDM process. Sorry guys, but if this is the logistics situation for the F-15C, it has got to go.
The cost per flying hour of the F-16 shows how much brain-drain the service has performed by dumping experienced E-5/E-6 aircraft maintainers. That and killing off very efficient Air National Guard users. If it costs that much per hour to keep an F-16 unit running, maybe your management structure is deskilled.
The F-22 figure jump represents a lot of lost flying hours (24k down to 15k per year) from the groundings. We still need this aircraft or there is no anti-access capability of worth.
A-10 high cost per flying hour: See F-16. If we can't drag A-10 costs down, we need to dump them and have armed single-engine turbo-props do the job. Not a true replacement but what are you going to do? I will entertain how the A-10 can't stand up to stiff air defense threats anyway in the comments section if needed.
The tanker situation is interesting. We keep hearing about how KC-135s are getting more expensive to operate every year and gosh we need the KC-46. Let us see if it can do that work at KC-135R costs--even though it carries more gas. I wonder how the KC-46 will compare to the KC-10?
C-130 numbers are interesting. This may explain in part why USAF cancelled the avionics upgrade for the H. However, again, I suppose some of it is management issues.
The long range bomber cost per flying hour puts a damper on the next generation bomber fantasy. If I could have engineers find a way to kick JASSMs out the back door of a C-17, we don't need a next generation bomber.
E-3 and E-8 costs point more to a 737 replacement. Not a perfect solution but one has to make ends meet.
I don't need AC-130s if that is what they cost per flying hour. The E-4 and CV-22B need to be killed off. Today.
The helicopter numbers are a joke. Some years ago, the justification for the HH-60 was we could operate 3 of them for the cost of its bigger replacement. Today, I think that justification is dead. For the UH-1Ns that shuttle around missile crews: well that cost per flying hour is about double of the commercial rate. Good grief.
Again, the trainer figures point to the fact that to supplement our home air defense, we need to use this class of aircraft for lower threats.
In summary, the USAF better find a new way of doing the flying business because we can't afford to keep them in the lifestyle they are accustomed to.
--
H/T for the figures--POGO
7 comments:
From ASPI Budget Brief 2011-2012
Cost per flying hour.
SH $23.13K
F18 $11.79K
Hawk $$9.73K
AP3C $13.29K
C130J $11.02K
C130H $17.8K
C17 $12.7K
AEW&C $57.5K
The Dassault Rafale and Typhoon would have costs per flight-hour within a few per cent of one another — but roughly twice that of the JAS 39E/F. cheers!
Hello Eric,
How about if I suggest retire all the F-15C/D's and develop the new single-seat F-15F variant (based on the two-seat F-15E) in a similar way the Sukhoi Co. developed the Su-35S Super Flanker-E.
With new updates for the Eagle such as.
1. APG-82 AESA fire control radar.
2. 2D or 3D thrust vectoring F100-PW-232 or F110-GE-132 engines with supercruising mode as a consideration.
3. DEWS (Digital Electronic Warfare System) or defensible EWSP jammers.
4. NG (Next Generation) 3-D touch screen cockpit display.
5. Digital fly-by-wire flight control system.
6. IRST sensor pod and CFB (Conformal Weapons Bay) etc.
One of the F-15 engineers from the DoD Buzz mentioned the samething about develop the new single-seat Eagle as a perfect replacement for the existing F-15C/D's.
So they are some of the options that can be looked at.
According to Canuck Fighter said about the F-15SE Silent Eagle with $100M (est) per plane, it may seem expensive but when all costs vs performance are reviewed, X vs Y vs Z are not the same. As stated by those in this discussion thread the F-15 provides, range, bigger weapons payload and speed benefits that other small fighters with short range, small weapons load and less powerful AESA radars and sensors albeit less expensive can not match. In turn, many of the new enhancements such as the fly by wire flight controls, and the availability of either the F100-PW-232 or F110-GE-132 engines should keep operating costs at or below the known costs of current F-15's.
Also according to Richard Banholzer, Boeing's Director of Business Development for the Air Force Fighters and Weapons, was a former USAF F-15A, F-15C and F-15E pilot and test pilot, with 2,000 hours on the F-4 Phantom II and 1,900 hours on F-15s.
He claims the F-15 still has a vital role to play (which I agree). The F-22 Raptor, with their greater stealth, Raptors might be the aircraft of choice to penetrate particularly high-threat zones.
However, on the "friendly" side or low to medium threat zones of the forward edge of the battle area - for cruise missile defence, defending high value assets and if the rules of engagement dictate close-in-engagement - the F-15 may be a better choice. So a mixed force of Eagles and Raptors would present a potent combination of flexibility and capability which is a perfect idea to complement with each other.
I'm not sure if you're aware Eric, Boeing Co. has extended the F-15 production line well into the 2020's to attract and satisfy new and existing customers.
Have you figured out F-35's cost per flying hour? I bet the flying costs for the failed F-35s are extremely expensive compared to the flying cost for the F-15's, F-16's, F-111's and F/A-18's etc.
By the Eric I just found out more teething problems on the aircraft again, its the pilot's helmet visor failing in flight tests. Bouncing too much to find the enemy.
Also just to let you know that I really dislike the JSF since the development was born in the early 1990's. I'm an anti-JSF supporter just like you and most other folks too.
Hope to hear your reply.
Regards Peter
I would love it if there was a lower cost per flying hour on the old C model F-15s that have AESA in them. And yes, with a Pacific focus, new build F-15s--2-seat and single-seat-make sense as backup to the F-22. Where even without BACN, an F-22 can see what targets other aircraft are locked up on in a mixed formation. The F-35A is now predicted at $35,200 per flying hour. Hardly worth it. Especially when LM briefs for years stated O&S for the jet would be .8 that of an F-16.
Hello Eric,
Gees, $35,200 per flying hour for the F-35A model. I agree hardly worth it.
The guy I use to know from the hobby shop was looking out for me explaining that if you're ever wanting to become a fighter pilot I never recommend the F-35. I can't trust the aircraft, because the flying hours are too expensive, unsafe to fly for e.g. single engine is a very nasty risk, no fire extinguishing system in the Integrated Power Package (IPP) bay, less range, slow acceleration, limited weapons payload, poor agility and the F-35 also exposes more heat when deploying full afterburner, which means the adversaries that are armed with BVR heat seeking missiles will easily find you and shoot you down from long range. Also faulty helmet mounted display.
The situation by relying only on stealth, AESA radar, advanced sensors, networking, data fusion capabilities, BVR AAMs and cruise missiles as stand-off while flying at straight and level with very gentle manoeuvres of presents of guns or missiles the JSF will be a “dead duck”. It doesn’t work that way which you’ll be placed at a significant disadvantage of being shot down while being chased by a Mach 2 Sukhoi that the F/A-18E/F and F-35A can’t escape.
I always feel that Mach 2+ acceleration is much better, which enhances both engagements of flying into the target area and destroying the high threat targets, and escape from, known threats as to get out of the fight as quick as possible to survive.
Even though fighters are rarely used at mach 2 for air-to-air combat or ground attack, I reckon its still needed for survivability. The requirement being only at Mach 1.6 you’ll be placed at a significant disadvantage.
Regards Peter
Doubtful that it would use M2+ in combat. The jet has the ability to go that fast at a great cost in fuel. However it points to performance capability. Something that the F-35 has not demonstrated.
How about maneuver? Here is a comparison. http://goo.gl/06GF5
Eric,
I'm curious what a freshly delivered FMS F-16 Block 50/52+ costs per hour compared to an older USAF F-16? Also, do you have any break-down on USAF F-16 operational costs too, comparing the different blocks (blk 30, 42, 50?)?
The same question might apply to say, hourly costs for an -15SG vs an older USAF F-15E?
When you look at the old F-15C/D operational costs vs F-15E costs, C-130J costs vs older C-130H costs and possibly even old F-16 costs vs new build F-16 costs, I'm starting to wonder if many times a newer platform of the same model will flat out be cheaper to operate!?
I.e., New engine, new lower-maintenance avionics, less corrosion, fewer cracks, etc, etc?
I agree fully with your assessment re: inefficiencies of relying on old F-15C/D or new F-22 to chase down a 'non-traditional' US air-space target.
I'm going to keep my personal assessment though, that a properly developed F-16XL-type evolution of the F-16 line would have been the most optimal, cost-effective option today available to decision makers recapitalizing a high-low 'mix'. Even at something like $25k per hour... including AESA and super-cruising ability (w/GE-132, 2 AIM-9x and 4x AMRAAM) that would be a helluva low-end capability.
What to do now? I would fully advocate (and have in past discussions) to replace all 'Old' F-15C/D with new F-15E+ (eg, figure an F-15SA... plus added blockers, APG-82, new tactical 450gal CFT with flush staring IR apertures built-in, touch-screen display, and durable/reduced maintenance GE-132 engine). Perhaps 80-90 interim units could be procured starting in FY14-FY22 @ 9-10 units per year and piggy-backing on F-15SA production for added economy of scale.
Simultaneously, the USAF could seek joint-development partners in developing a true single-seat F-15F+ concept which could further incorporate a 2-D thrust vectoring engine, as well as a possible tail redesign? Although, this would probably take 2-3 additional years to develop at the least, hence starting in FY14 with off-the-shelf F-15E+ buys.
Mix said new-build F-15E with 20x annual F-16V buys to replace block 30/42.
Develop an air-launched AIM-162 with 2 separate seeker derivatives to offset loss of F-35 VLO and offset loss of additional F-22 procurement requirements. Develop AGM-174 (multi-mission) for high-value relocatable ground/surface target stand-off capability to offset loss of F-35 VLO and loss of additional F-22 procurement requirement.
NGB Bomber? 1) Spend $5-8 billion R&D. Spend $250m per B-1B upgrade, reconfigured possibly with a cranked delta wing for extended range, higher altitude and faster cruising speeds. Replace with durable and reduced-maintenance GE-132 engines. Retrofit cockpit and canopy and possibly integrate the APG-82 along with latest off-the-shelf Euro or Israeli AEA/escort ECM kit. 2) Joint-develop with USN (and Boeing and Northrop) an 80,000lb MTOW FB-22 as VLO stand-off launch platform and mulit-mission platform in lieu of NGAD/F/A-XX with SDD-phase completion aimed for 2025. USAF could further evolve this concept into a further extend-range and heavier derivative down the road in the mid 2030s. 3) Development of a UCAV variant with capacity to carry 3x JASSM-ER class sized munitions internally.
I'm fairly confident the above 'Alternative' USAF force structure model could be afforded given a baseline defense budget of $475b in FY12 dollars.
But how to help 'Hedge' for all this?? DoD should be buying RUB currency as part of strategic FX reserve account. Essentially, DoD should develop a financial arm with ability to grow FX reserves. Perhaps $5-10bn per year, annual budget, to diversify in FX. Sell the USD/RUB pair while above 33.00 now as hedge. If in 5 years oil prices are back through the roof and RUB exchanges at 29.0, then you've at least just paid for half your fighter operational costs! =)
Post a Comment