Besides silliness from 2004, it seems the NACCs' operating costs assumptions for the F-35 are questionable.
Up to this time, no one in the Australian public knew what cost per flying hour assumptions were being used by the NACC to predict cost of ownership with the F-35. If someone knows some other sources, please comment.
A March 2012 white paper by Janes titled, "Fast jet cost per flight hour (CPFH)" quotes the following:
"RAAF F-35A estimated cost over 30 year operational service at 200 hours per year per aircraft" as $21,000 (USD) per flying hour.
That is a lot of difference to NACC assumptions.
The Jane's white paper is informative but weak. It refers to the F-35 as a "fifth-generation fighter" when no evidence exists other than marketing hype. Janes also uses different methods than the U.S. SAR to calculate cost per flying hour. They label the F-16 with a cost per flying hour of $7000 (figures based from a variety of USAF active, reserve and air guard units).
So if they are low with the F-16, how low are they with the F-35?
Ask the Dutch or the U.S. Navy.
The U.S. Government Account Office has also weighed in with F-35 operating costs assumptions, which when considered, show that they have uncovered a fair bit of marketing spin:
"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program office underreported the average cost per flying hour for the aircraft in the 2010 SAR. The average, steady-state O&S cost per flying hour was reported as $16,425 (fiscal year 2002 dollars). Program officials told us that the number of aircraft used in the estimate for the Air Force’s inventory was not accurate and the estimate also did not project for future cost growth above inflation.
The estimate included approximately 528 extra aircraft that when calculating the average cost per flying hour, resulted in higher flight hours and lower average costs per hour. Further, according to the SAR, some of the F-35’s O&S costs were intentionally excluded from the estimate to enable comparison with the antecedent system, the F-16 C/D. Costs for support equipment replacement, modifications, and indirect costs were removed from the F-35’s cost per flying hour since they were not available for the F-16 C/D.
Officials calculated that the revised cost per flying hour for the F-35 was $23,557 (fiscal year 2002 dollars), or 43 percent higher, after including the excluded costs, projecting for future cost growth above inflation, and correcting the number of aircraft. However, they noted that the total O&S life-cycle cost reported in the SAR for the F-35 was accurate because it was calculated separately from the average cost per flying hour."
The United States Air Force, the alleged biggest buyer of the F-35 now figures that the jet could cost $35,500 per flying hour.
So the NACC used an F-35 cost per flying hour assumption that is just a little bit less than the F-16 SAR or a significant amount more than the Jane's F-16 figure.
If Jane's is right, the F-35 is 3 times more expensive per flying hour than an F-16. If the U.S. SAR is right, the F-35 is 50pc more expensive to fly than an F-16.
Interesting as Lockheed Martin was claiming in their briefings (for years to all the faithful) that the F-35 would cost 20pc less to operate and sustain than an F-16.
With that, the lack of real F-35 operational test data in real squadrons means there are still a lot of question marks. I would not think that the claim of the F-35 being the same or cheaper to operate than “legacy” aircraft is anything other than a deception.
How the RAAF is supposed to make annual flying budget end's meet with today's dollars in an environment which will see a lot less money in the coming years is anyone's guess.
Until then, the NACC will recommend Australia stay the course with the F-35.
7 comments:
Eric:
Those comparing the F-35 cost per flying hour with the F-16C/D cost per flying hour are obviously overlooking the fact that the F-16 costs include the salary costs and costs for support of the back sweater in the F-16D.
This is just more of the BS that the NACC folks and others keep chugging down which APA and others like yourself having been pointing out for years.
There aren't that many twin seaters in a regular USAF F-16 unit. Also, USAF has been rapidly deskilling the MX force through drawdowns and just dumb management in the past years. If a an F-16 is taking 19k,20,21k to run per hour, some big people need to be fired for management incompetence. Also, a year after it appeared, if you talk to various USAF maintenance personnel, this view of MX management across different airframes, still rings true among the flight line worker. So the alleged biggest buyer of the F-35 has some serious MX management problems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnPu-kk_eOA
Eric, are there any figues for the F15C/E to compare to? It occurs to me that they just might make 80% of the F15 costs once they've cleared out all the early bedding in issues, say around the 2020 timeframe.
Look at all the briefings from the start of the program. The comparison of "legacy" was always the F-16. Slightly later the defined that to mean also classic Hornets. F-15s were not mentioned in the "legacy" comparison.
Sure, but given the F35's weight, the people in the know must have discarded the F16 comparison years ago (in private). It strikes me as passing strange that the RAAF never considered buying F15 because of the operating costs and yet...
Do they factor in the probability of losing whole $150M+ aircraft after a $2 BB takes out the engine in these O&S costs or does that go in a different column?
Many people may have thought many things on comparisons however the F-16 and later, the classic Hornet were used as "legacy" comparisons.
As for your second part, yes, there do seem to be a raft of survivability concerns. Even the top DOD test boss has worries about it.
Hey, Scarlet, I see your little troll mate, Jason Simmons, is posting in the great Northland and ranting about quite reasonable posts including some from, surprisingly, some far-left-of-center Academics who still make some quite valid points.
Can you explain why you guys keep ignoring the stuff that Eric posts up to inform you lot?
After all, these are some of the data and facts you keep harping on about but never put forward yourself.
Post a Comment