Military Aviation News-2013

[obligatory]

I believe the current fuss over the refueling issue is a rationalization over the fact that the operational cost went out of reach for the money.
They cant afford it but blame the refueling

[Belethor]

They cant afford it but blame the refueling

Lets be honest here, if they can't afford the F-35 then they probably can't afford any of the others with the exception of the Gripen, which of course would not bring a revolutionary change to their airforce that the F-35 and to a lesser extent the other types would. And wasn't the Typhoon at last count actually more expensive than the F-35?

[obligatory]

Canada don't need a revolutionary improvement, they need an evolutionary
increase in patrol range, (be that by UAV or AAR or property of their replacement, or a combination of the three) and whatever extra EF cost vs F-35 is more than equalized by the decreased operational cost.

[Belethor]

Canada don't need a revolutionary improvement, they need an evolutionary

An evolutionary improvement is NOT going to be future proof for the 40 or so years they plan on operating the aircraft especially when said aircraft are not remotely low observable. And if didn't want revolutionary improvement over their Hornets they'd would have settled for a Gripen or some other jet with average capablity jet a long while ago.
Typhoon is damned expensive to operate BTW. It is not a budget jet so again chances are if they can't afford to operate the F-35 then they can't afford to operate Typhoon.

And thats enough from me in a news thread.

[MSphere]

Typhoon is damned expensive to operate BTW. It is not a budget jet so again chances are if they can't afford to operate the F-35 then they can't afford to operate Typhoon.

Numbers instead of tales, pls.

[Tango III]

Two F16s land safely after separate in-flight mechanical incidences

[Tango III]

U.S. Air Force F-15 Funding Flying High

[Tango III]

UK MoD reviews retirement plans for RAF transports, tankers

[Belethor]

Numbers instead of tales, pls.

Despite having you on my ignore list I happened to catch your post whilst browsing without being logged in, here is what you asked for. Enjoy.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...01125w0001.htm

70,000 quid per flight hour is the mark of a jet that would no doubt suit the Canadians well if they wanted to bankrupt their airforce! (as it has almost done with the RAF)

[Fedaykin]

I see a bit of selective reading there Belethor, the table in the report does list the per hour operating cost of Typhoon as £70,000 per hour which is significantly more then the other types listed but the paragraph directly above explains WHY! Lets read that paragraph shall we:

The MoD calculates the full cost of aircraft per flying hour; the current rates for our fast jets are shown below. These figures include forward and depth servicing, fuel costs, crew costs, training costs, cost of capital charge, depreciation and amortisation. The Typhoon cost per flying hour reflects the build-up of the fleet with small numbers of aircraft currently in service. This cost will comparatively reduce as the fleet builds and is expected to be similar to our other fast jet fleets when we reach a steady state position.

These are 2010 figures and they reflect the operating costs of a new type only just being inducted into full service in small numbers. The figures also reflect predicted future maintenance costs. The UK is also a launch customer for the type meaning there is an inherent defect rectification cost associated.

If Canada were to buy the type the initial start up costs would be higher (as it would be for any type) and then settle down. Canada would also not have to burden costs that the partner nations in the project do bringing the type into full operational capability.

Another thing two of the types on that list are now out of service and sold on in the case of Harrier and parted out in the case of F-3 Tornado. The per hour cost of F3 and Harrier combined is more then the Typhoon and they are both out of service now. Combine that with the cost reductions as more Typhoon stand up and your assertion that the Type has nearly bankrupted the RAF is rather disingenuous.

So do you care to modify for your assertions?

[Belethor]

I see a bit of selective reading there Belethor,

Not really, unless the Typhoon Canada intends to operate doesn't need servicing, fuel, crews, training etc etc. It is still going to work out mighty expensive even if you buy into the costs to build up the fleet, which I should need to point out will hit them in the same way too. Fact is it isn't a cheap jet to operate.

[Fedaykin]

OK so rather then actually deal with what I have written reply with a vague answer about it being an expensive jet to operate.

You asserted that it nearly bankrupted the RAF, I pointed out that the report clearly stated they are work up costs that will go down to approximately the same as the other jets in the fleet and two of those other types are out of service anyway...lets look at the paragraph again:

The MoD calculates the full cost of aircraft per flying hour; the current rates for our fast jets are shown below. These figures include forward and depth servicing, fuel costs, crew costs, training costs, cost of capital charge, depreciation and amortisation. The Typhoon cost per flying hour reflects the build-up of the fleet with small numbers of aircraft currently in service. This cost will comparatively reduce as the fleet builds and is expected to be similar to our other fast jet fleets when we reach a steady state position.

You have been caught out selectively reading a report and ignoring the very reasons that you are wrong in that same report...now again are you going to wind your neck in or is it just an axe you have to grind?

[Belethor]

Sorry bud but my necks not wound out in the first place, unlike some on here... Anyway, if you can't accept the fact that Typhoon is extremely expensive at £70,000 an hour to operate, as stated by the U.K government then I don't know what to say. 'In denial' is a term that springs to mind though.

[Fedaykin]

Again! That was a 2010 report and it clearly explains that £70,000 figure:

The MoD calculates the full cost of aircraft per flying hour; the current rates for our fast jets are shown below. These figures include forward and depth servicing, fuel costs, crew costs, training costs, cost of capital charge, depreciation and amortisation. The Typhoon cost per flying hour reflects the build-up of the fleet with small numbers of aircraft currently in service. This cost will comparatively reduce as the fleet builds and is expected to be similar to our other fast jet fleets when we reach a steady state position.

Why are you being so disingenuous by ignoring that? It is nothing to do with me in denial, it is everything to do with you tooling up here and clearly trolling the forum.

As I said you clearly have an axe to grind!

[swerve]

Despite having you on my ignore list I happened to catch your post whilst browsing without being logged in, here is what you asked for. Enjoy.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...01125w0001.htm

70,000 quid per flight hour is the mark of a jet that would no doubt suit the Canadians well if they wanted to bankrupt their airforce! (as it has almost done with the RAF)

That isn't the operating cost that's usually quoted in comparisons between different types, & isn't comparable with it.

The usual cost is the marginal cost, i.e. the difference between having the aircraft sitting on the ground for an hour & flying for an hour.

As Fedaykin showed you, by quoting from the report, the quoted Typhoon cost is effectively the cost of ownership divided by flying hours. To illustrate how this is not comparable with the pubished figures for other aircraft consider what would happen if flying hours were half what they have been: it would almost double, because most of it is fixed costs. It goes up if interest rates go up, because it includes capital charges, i.e. interest on capital costs. As hours flown increases, it falls.

All this has been explained before, here & on other fora.

No, mate, the one in denial isn't Fedaykin, it's you. I sense multiple users reaching for the ignore button. :diablo:

[thobbes]

Not to sound like an anal a-hole but could this thread please be reserved for news only?

[MSphere]

Despite having you on my ignore list I happened to catch your post whilst browsing without being logged in, here is what you asked for. Enjoy.

Oh, I am sure you have me there. That is why you accidentally respond to everything I write.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...01125w0001.htm

70,000 quid per flight hour is the mark of a jet that would no doubt suit the Canadians well if they wanted to bankrupt their airforce! (as it has almost done with the RAF)

Well, that is nice, unfortunately I am completely missing comparable F-35 figures there. By comparable I mean figures achieved using the same calculation method. Without these, your whole argument is moot.

[schurem]

Is this the Typhoon Cost Discussion thread? no? really?

[EELightning]

OK so rather then actually deal with what I have written reply with a vague answer about it being an expensive jet to operate.

You asserted that it nearly bankrupted the RAF, I pointed out that the report clearly stated they are work up costs that will go down to approximately the same as the other jets in the fleet and two of those other types are out of service anyway...lets look at the paragraph again:



You have been caught out selectively reading a report and ignoring the very reasons that you are wrong in that same report...now again are you going to wind your neck in or is it just an axe you have to grind?

Have you seen Spinal Tap?

Nigel: My Marshall amps goes up to 11, you see?
Man: Oh yeah, whats the purpose of that?
Nigel: Well, its one louder than 10, ain't it!
Man: Why don't you make 10 the top number and make that the loudest?
Nigel: Yeah but these go up to 11!
Man: Yes but, why don't you just make 10 louder?
Nigel: ...... These go up to 11...

Theres no point in explaining to some people mate.

[Glendora]

New record: Italian Predator drone stays aloft for 24 hours in Afghanistan and completes four missions in one sortie

Previous record by USAF beaten by 2 hours circa.

[obligatory]

Here is an apples to apples comparison in operational cost,
and the appropriate thread for further discussion on operational cost.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...t=95008&page=3

[haavarla]

Be gone you ranting clovns.

Go and polute the F-35 or Euro fighter thread instead.
One more post and i report your @ss!

Believe it or not but some of us like this News thread, as A NEWS THREAD. Lets keep it that way.



Now some news.

India successfull test Sea based Brahmos missile.

[MSphere]

US Army fields first AH-64E Block III

Boeing has delivered 28 of 51 low-rate initial production AH-64Es that it is contracted to build. This year, the company will start producing full-rate production aircraft for an eventual total of 634 helicopters.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...o-come-380875/

[Tango III]

Royal Navy to face surveillance, transport helicopter shortages

[Tango III]

Combat Aircraft Market Active, But Complex

[Tango III]

Why Air Force Needs Lots Of F-35s: Gen. Hostage On The 'Combat Cloud'

[Tango III]

Air defence missile IRIS-T-SL tested successfully

[djcross]

Why Air Force Needs Lots Of F-35s: Gen. Hostage On The 'Combat Cloud'

"Combat Cloud" is a catchy name for networked System of Systems which USAF has been pursuing for close to a decade. It is also the reason you see a de-emphasis on fragile "linchpin" nodes such as AWACS. Every member of the SoS, from tiny palm-sized UAVs to huge NGBs share their unique sensor abilities, providing a fused high-fidelity picture of the battlespace to all members of the SoS.

[Tango III]

Hawker Settles Dispute with Pilatus over T-6 Royalties

[Tango III]

Turkey Postpones Order for Its First Two F-35 Fighters