F-35A CPFH 10% more than F-16

F-35 Ops Cost Exceeds F-16 By 10%
Amy Butler 12:12 PM on Apr 18, 2013

"The long and sometimes contentious wait for a cost-per-flying-hour for the new F-35 is over.

The single-engine F-35A is expected to cost about 10 percent more to operate than the F-16 it is intended to replace for the U.S. Air Force and other international military services, according to U.S. government officials.

USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer overseeing the F-35 program, told Dutch lawmakers that the cost-per-flying-hour for the F-35A, which The Netherlands intends to buy, is $24,000, according to an Air Force spokeswoman. He provided the data to Dutch legislators, including a “side-by-side comparison of flying hour costs between the F-16 and the F-35,” she says.

She says Bogdan characterized the figures as “preliminary.” Though flight training has begun on the F-35A and testing continues, the data gathered is fresh and does not reflect an entire life’s worth of use. Ongoing durability testing will help program officials determine whether any parts or systems will require support that is not built into this figure."

Estimates for F-35B and -C will be available later this spring.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... c806bdbc38

If its only 10% more, side-by-side, then thats a bargain.
F/A-18E/F is probably about the same, when compared side-by-side.

neurotech wrote:If its only 10% more, side-by-side, then thats a bargain.
F/A-18E/F is probably about the same, when compared side-by-side.

Lets see if that will enter into the manufactured outrage we are sure to see from the usual suspects.

If the 10 percent CPFH is true, that has to be some kind of record for a next generation aircraft compared to the previous generation.

Total SWAG but isn't the F-15C roughly $40K an hour and the F-22 about $60K CPFH? so a 50 percent increase?

My two predictions:

Largest area where CPFH is higher on the F-35 will be fuel.

Largest area where CPFH is lower on the F-35 will be PBL & parts.

SpudmanWP wrote:My two predictions:

Largest area where CPFH is higher on the F-35 will be fuel.

Largest area where CPFH is lower on the F-35 will be PBL & parts.

Wouldn't they "control" for fuel CPFH, as they do in other SARs?

However 10% is a significant, but by all means acceptable increase. Alot of this will be compensated for by greater simulator use to limit the need for training flights.

Compared to the 30+% that CAPE and others were predicting, its by no means the disaster once predicted. It also does not rule out further decreases as PBL and other systems find new efficiencies to exploit.

Canadian journalists will report this is "soaring, out of control costs".

'hb_pencil' good point about the sim training. Some say it will be 50% (or are planning for that sim time - such as the RAF). I wonder how all of this CPFH detail will be made available to the public?

spazsinbad wrote:'hb_pencil' good point about the sim training. Some say it will be 50% (or are planning for that sim time - such as the RAF). I wonder how all of this CPFH detail will be made available to the public?

I would be very surpriced if L-M did not take that into account when they made their numbers. In the final compromise between L-M and DOD I'm sure no savings with the F-35 have been left out, and that 10% is probably best case. Still, it is a small increase for a large improvment in capabilities.

One saving I doubt they have included though is for operations where 2 F-35 can do a job where 4 F-16 and other auxiliary flying assets is needed today.

The audience for the numbers are Dutch parliamentarians who are coincidentally debating the country's future participation in the program. Considering that Bogdan characterized the number as "preliminary," I rather wait to see more support for the estimates before accepting them as definitive.

Once again we see Gen. Bogdan characterised as some kind of deceiver by 'maus92'? He says what he says accurately - who else is a spokesperson at this time? 'maus92' should change moniker to 'doubtingThomas' (or whatever is gender appropriate/neutral). Gen. Bogdan was speaking to the Dutchies directly AFAIK with what he knew at the time making it clear the info was preliminary. WTF

maus92 wrote:The audience for the numbers are Dutch parliamentarians who are coincidentally debating the country's future participation in the program. Considering that Bogdan characterized the number as "preliminary," I rather wait to see more support for the estimates before accepting them as definitive.

It's pretty much preliminary, until the jets get more flight time. At the moment, some parts do fail prematurely, and need rework. Flight profile and envelope is restricted, so that could result in increased maintenance once the full envelope is used operationally.

At one point, I got to see how much each F/A-18 and F-16 cost to operate. Fuel, Parts and consumables & Line maintenance hours. The F/A-18F cost about the same as a F/A-18C/D did. The F/A-18D required more maintenance, and the F/A-18F required more fuel. F-16 was cheaper by about 10-15%

I wouldn't interpret Gen Bogdan's comments as deceptive, as it really is preliminary data.

From an AvWeek article a couple of month's back..



http://www.aviationweek.com/blogs.aspx? ... b429e5ab99

Lt. Gen. Burt Field, Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and program, said at this month’s Air Force Association conference in Orlando that he assumes the F-35 is going to be a “little more expensive” than the F-16 to operate. This contradicts the marketing promise of Lockheed Martin. Company officials promised that customers could operate the new aircraft more cheaply than legacy fleets across their life.

Lockheed Martin’s CPFH cost estimate is different than the Air Force’s because the latter includes some items that the company omits. The company – in trying to have a true “apples to apples” comparison – did not include the cost of operating the electro-optical targeting system, for example, or the information technology systems used to support aircraft operations, this industry source says.

This is because the F-16 cost-per-flying-hour figure lacks data on the cost of operating its targeting pods and computer systems. Also skewing the numbers is that the Air Force’s legacy aircraft flying hour accounts are not fully funded, so the cost is below what an optimal value would be. With the F-35 estimate, the service assumes full funding for the accounts.

This is a “work in progress … We agree the cost per flying hour will exceed that of the F-16,” the industry source says, adding that the company expects the anticipated total lifetime cost will be below that of legacy aircraft.

110% beats 300% or whatever figures were being floated around recently.

count_to_10 wrote:110% beats 300% or whatever figures were being floated around recently.

I'm sure that doom and gloom prediction will be forgotten to focus on the 10 percent increase, Then again I am a "glass is 190% percent below my 'educated' estimate, but LM is still wrong" type.

just because they were wrong by 10 percent and I was wrong by 190 percent, doesn't mean they were closer or anything.

Most CPFH numbers aggregate a different set of cost elements, and within each element there are different GR&A for what gets counted how. For example fuel burn will depend on the detailed mission profile and assumed engine performance. The difference between min engine and avg engine SFC is significant. USG entities also tend to inflate the number in front of budget submissions knowing that they will not be funded to 100% of the estimate.

All should note that the PEO said these are 'preliminary' numbers -- an appropriately cautionary position given previous USG missteps on concurrency costs. The one-year change in concurrency estimates is said to be a three-digit number with an M behind it (i.e. a reduction).