Forum: Program and politics

I saw 70,000 Pounds per hour for Typhoon from the MOD in 2011 but that's probably too much to use for comparison because they stated that figure would decrease as they get better at working with the aircraft. The figure also included depreciation etc.

F-16 is about $20,000 per hour.

If F-35 is $40,000 per hour than 60% would be $24,000 per hour, about 20% more than the F-16 for a heavier twin.

The figure he stated was the usual trolling lie kind of thing he throws out to get attention. What do you expect when the situation is:

No AESA
No DAS
No VLO
Similar cost
F-35 chosen over Typhoon in Japan.

If you can't win on the facts, make up new facts.

F-16.net Sponsor

NAO's finding on EF > http://www.2shared.com/document/BgNTXym ... 520-I.html
Page 55, "Cost of Support Phase" item.

Lovely... a ZERO context one liner.

How do you compare the different ways countries measure these costs?

The rough rule is weight and thrust give an idea of the real impact on a budget.

VLO is thought to raise this by some factor.

How large that factor will be as more experience is gained has yet to be determined.

Much more than zero Spudman...thought you don't need to be hand led...
Anyway, in 2011 UK Gvt. had allocated £13.1b for support of 160 EFs, over their projected lifetime...160x6000 (hours per airframe) equals ~£13.5k CPFH, which equals ~$21.1k at current exchange rate, somewhat more expensive than F16 and quite a score for an absurd concept.
In case there's something left unclear, here's a detailed breakdown of that item (page 25 > http://www.2shared.com/document/_BRyuj3u/1011755.html).
I think you'll find it quite comparable to DoD's yardsticks in measuring operational costs.

cola wrote:

I think you'll find it quite comparable to DoD's yardsticks in measuring operational costs.

Actually its not... there is no context to any of those numbers. What fuel costs are they estimating? Are labour costs comparable? What is the parts costs?

Also if we're talking about the future projections, you can't compare Eurofighter to F-35 Costs. The UK only intends to run their Eurofighters for 12 to 15 years before retirement, rather than 30, meaning they don't incur higher operational costs associated with maintaining 20+ year old aircraft. And even then the NAO suggest that it will be difficult for DoD to keep the support costs within their budget.

hb_pencil wrote:

What fuel costs are they estimating?

Same as the US?

Quote:

Are labour costs comparable?

Well, Britain isn't exactly a 3rd world nation, so I'd say yes.

Quote:

What is the parts costs?

This kinda makes the difference in O&M cost.

Quote:

The UK only intends to run their Eurofighters for 12 to 15 years before retirement, rather than 30...

You mean the entire fleet? Very Happy

As for the rumored T1 early retirement, BAE just started a Drop2 upgrade program for T1 series, which would be pretty silly thing to do if planes are going in the mill in 3-5 years as you suggest. (http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsbae-upgrade-tranche-1/)

Quote:

And even then the NAO suggest that it will be difficult for DoD to keep the support costs within their budget.

What does the UK's solvency (btw, it's called MoD in the UK) have to do with EF's CPFH?
Reading comments here, you guys really need some perspective on the things.

Anyway, not sure why are we talking about EF, when this is F35's thread.
Maybe addressing F35's sustainability in US' services with forecast figures would be more appropriate...

cola wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

What fuel costs are they estimating?

Same as the US?

That's a completely baseless assumption. So what is the expected projections for oil prices in 2025 for each country? These figures vary widely within an individual departments, not to speak of different ministries, or even different countries. There isn't one "resource" for these things.

Let me make it really clear for you:

If you are comparing current Eurofighter support costs with Future F-35 support estimates, you're definitely undertaking an flawed assessment based on fuel prices.

If you are comparing future Eurofighter support estimates with future F-35 support estimates, you're most likely undertaking a flawed assessment based on fuel prices.

cola wrote:

Quote:

Are labour costs comparable?

Well, Britain isn't exactly a 3rd world nation, so I'd say yes.

And the evidence says no.

Given that the per capita GDP of the United States is $46,000 and its $36,000 for the UK, there is a big difference.

cola wrote:

Quote:

The UK only intends to run their Eurofighters for 12 to 15 years before retirement, rather than 30...

You mean the entire fleet? Very Happy

No, The RAF Stated they intend to retire their Tranche 3 Eurofighters in 2030. Its in the NAO document you posted. If they enter service in 2014, that gives a theoretical lifespan of 16 years but more likely around 12~15 years.

cola wrote:

As for the rumored T1 early retirement, BAE just started a Drop2 upgrade program for T1 series, which would be pretty silly thing to do if planes are going in the mill in 3-5 years as you suggest. (http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsbae-upgrade-tranche-1/)

Its a bit more of a rumor when the Permanent Undersecretary AND the Director of Combat Air state it in Committee evidence. See question 11, 12 and 43.

Furthermore if the MoD extends the life of the Tranche 1, then those cost estimates will be revised higher because those NAO estimates are based on Tranche 1 retirement in 2018. That means your price figure would increase significantly because they would start operating the fighter when its support costs start to rise due to age.

cola wrote:

Quote:

And even then the NAO suggest that it will be difficult for DoD to keep the support costs within their budget.

What does the UK's solvency have to do with EF's CPFH?

No, that's the NAO's assessment of the MoD's support costs estimates (the thing you keep claiming is so much lower than the F-35), not a question of the government's overall solvency. Page 27:

Living within the support cost budget will be challenging

The Department is confident that it can deliver support within the £13.1 billion, including those elements not within the original approval. However as the number of aircraft has fallen by a third to 160 (albeit more capable aircraft than originally planned), this means that the unit cost of support per aircraft has risen by approximately a third on a like for like basis.

I guess I mistakenly assumed that if you posted the document you might have had actually read it and possessed the ability to comprehend it.

cola wrote:

(btw, it's called MoD in the UK)

Thanks, I've visited Whitehall... so I think you'll forgive me for the typo.

cola wrote:

Reading comments here, you guys really need some perspective on the things.

Reading your comments here, you really need some basic knowledge on the things.

Troll less and learn more.

cola wrote:

Anyway, not sure why are we talking about EF, when this is F35's thread.

So you brought up an erroneous piece of evidence, and now you're questioning why we are discussing it when its been exposed?

Classic.

Last edited by cola on Jun 29, 2012 - 09:45 PM; edited 3 times in total

LOL pencil, prices are comparable...
UK's GPD was within 10% of US' from '04 (equal in '07 f.e.), up until '09 when UK's declined more sharply.
This is why you managed find "Living within the support cost budget will be challenging" at NAO's assessment, page 27 and this is why EF was a part of SDR.
If you believe UK can get oil cheaper than the US, than you're really a special fellow.
Finally, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/c860-i/c86001.htm isn't representative anymore, as this was a consideration under the SDR.
At that point UK was still committed to F35C, a program aimed at commonality with USN and MN.

I suppose you're one of those who believe EF's CPFH is £70k...sigh...

Quote:

Thanks, I've visited Whitehall...

Ah, almost missed this pearl...did you get the badge?

cola wrote:

LOL pencil, prices are comparable...
UK's GPD was within 10% of US' (equal in '07 f.e.), up until '09 when UK's declined more sharply.
This is why you managed find "Living within the support cost budget will be challenging" at NAO's assessment, page 27 and this is why EF was a part of SDR.
If you believe UK can get oil cheaper than the US, than you're really a special fellow.
Finally, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/c860-i/c86001.htm isn't representative anymore, as this was a consideration under the SDR.
At that point UK was still committed to F35C, a program aimed at commonality with USN and MN.

I suppose you're one of those who believe EF's CPFH is £70k...sigh...

So, how many years until they dump Typhoon for F-35?

Shingen, this is the F35's forum.
If you're interested in when will UK dump the EF for F35, I suggest you engage in discussion here > http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b.html and since there are ppl deeply embedded in the UK's JSF program there, you're likely to get all the answers you want.

I'll connect some dots here.

Planes normally have a 30 year lifetime.

Typhoons are being retired before that.

F-35 is being purchased.

That seems to suggest that military professionals who have access to real data believe that the F-35 offers superior capability for the money.

It is absurd to go for a half generation lead in tech. In the case of warplanes it costs as much as going for a whole generation jump but delivers a lot less.

Forum: Program and politics

Partners pay same unit recurring flyaway cost as US