Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 115

Thread: list of combat aircraft flight cost per hour

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,043
    Quote Originally Posted by robban View Post
    So, the price for jet fuel is ~2$ per liter? Jet-A-1 is about 50 cents per liter. What makes jet fuel for military jets four times more expensive?
    Your blind faith aside.

    In the seven months ending in March, the Pentagon's average monthly cost for its most-used jet fuel, JP-8, rose 34 percent, from $2.34 to $3.13 per gallon, according to the Defense Logistics Agency. The cost of JP-5, used primarily by Navy jets operating at sea, increased from $2.22 to $2.94 per gallon.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    451
    That's still just ~80 cents per liter. Far from 2$. My highly unprofessional conclusion is that the fuel cost for a Gripen per hour is only ~800$. Certainly, 2000$ per flight hour includes more than just fuel?
    Last edited by robban; 18th October 2009 at 18:41.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Near my dog:)
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    Your blind faith aside.

    In the seven months ending in March, the Pentagon's average monthly cost for its most-used jet fuel, JP-8, rose 34 percent, from $2.34 to $3.13 per gallon, according to the Defense Logistics Agency. The cost of JP-5, used primarily by Navy jets operating at sea, increased from $2.22 to $2.94 per gallon.
    I don't know what are you trying to point out here Sens as he was saying per litter, not per gallon.
    As per your calculation USAF's paying $0.68 per litter while USN pays $0.64 per litter.
    Or you think that these 14 - 18 cents represent huge difference?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,043
    Quote Originally Posted by niksi View Post
    I don't know what are you trying to point out here Sens as he was saying per litter, not per gallon.
    As per your calculation USAF's paying $0.68 per litter while USN pays $0.64 per litter.
    Or you think that these 14 - 18 cents represent huge difference?
    First of all I did stick to a comparable US example and not to the Swedish cost for fuel and related taxes.

    3,785411784 Liter = 1 US gal.

    F-34
    is a military kerosene type aviation turbine fuel with Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII) (NOTE 1) used by land based military gas turbine engined aircraft in all NATO countries. (NOTE 2) Also known as JP-8 or AVTUR/FSII.
    JET A-1 or AVTUR + Additives (NOTE 3) = JP-8 or AVTUR/FSII.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,043
    Quote Originally Posted by robban View Post
    That's still just ~80 cents per liter. Far from 2$. My highly unprofessional conclusion is that the fuel cost for a Gripen per hour is only ~800$. Certainly, 2000$ per flight hour includes more than just fuel?
    For a mission flight of one hour duration a Gripen does burn ~2000 kg of fuel or ~2500 litre.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    451
    2500 liters per hour? Where did you get that number from?

    That would mean that a Gripen has an airborne time of little over an hour on internal fuel? I find that hard to believe. That's comparable to the 50 year old Draken, a larger, heavier and more draggy machine, with a lower internal fuel capacity as well as a considerably more thirsty engine.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,043
    Quote Originally Posted by robban View Post
    2500 liters per hour? Where did you get that number from?

    That would mean that a Gripen has an airborne time of little over an hour on internal fuel? I find that hard to believe. That's comparable to the 50 year old Draken, a larger, heavier and more draggy machine, with a lower internal fuel capacity as well as a considerably more thirsty engine.

    Practical values! To make some use of the installed thrust and some external loads your flight time on internal fuel is ~ one hour, when the fuel-fraction is < 0,25. Most time you will see a Gripen with a central belly tank.
    The weather and country-side in Sweden does demand ~300 kg of fuel reserve alone, when landing back.
    10 minutes to run-up the engine, taxi the loaden fighter to the runway and ~30 seconds full AB for take-off does burn up to 400 kg of fuel f.e.

    For a Tornado the landing-reserve is 1500 kg of fuel f.e.

    Maybe you can ask a Swedish or Norwegian pilot about that?!

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Cola1973 View Post
    Yes well, I figured that one myself.
    Do you know what does this time between breakdown actually mean and what type of malfunction qualifies as a breakdown??
    Note, that the MTBB is generally double in duration than MTBF.
    I would think that a failure necessarily means the aircraft is inoperative. A breakdown is when a scheduled mission must be canceled for technical reasons. Then 13h MTBB sounds scary.
    Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,207
    I was under impression that MTBF is a time between any aircraft component failure, like HUD or tail RWR aerial, meaning nonessential system, without which the mission will be theoretically possible to fulfill.
    In the breakdown case, I'd imagine it's a critical (essential) system failure, meaning engine, hydraulics, etc,...
    Any ideas??
    Cheers, Cola

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,442
    MTBF does not necessarily have anything to do with breakdowns. Rather it is standards or metered lifespans of a component or group of components within a system. A breakdown is a real or imagined condition that terminates a mission and normally is the reason the aircraft cannot return until the change order is executed.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,369
    Specify the definition of MTBF.

    The Pentagon has 3 definitions:
    • MTBF-inherent: component fails due to design or manufacturing defect
    • MTBF-induced: external factor induced component to fail
    • MTBF-no defect: claimed failure could not be verified (intermittent fault or wrong part replaced)


    Other metrics include
    • MTBR: mean time between (component) removal
    • Air abort rate: percentage of flown sorties that are aborted after takeoff
    • Ground Abort rate: percentage of scheduled sorties that abort before takeoff
    • Break rate: percentage of flights where airplane returns with something broken
    • Mission capability rate: percentage of "Up time" (unbroken hours) to possessed hours
    • Sortie generation rate: the number of sorties flown per day and is typically measured at discrete time intervals -- "first 3 days" of campaign, "first week", "first 30 days", and finally "sustained operations"

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,078
    FWiw, I recall an old Flug Revue report (2000?) estimating the cost of a Mig-29 SMT @ $ 4500 per hour.

    Also won't maintenance costs differ from country to country? I mean labor is a lot cheaper in India for example, wouldn't that reduce the cost considerably compared to let say France or UK?

    USS.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Sens View Post
    Practical values! To make some use of the installed thrust and some external loads your flight time on internal fuel is ~ one hour, when the fuel-fraction is < 0,25. Most time you will see a Gripen with a central belly tank.
    The weather and country-side in Sweden does demand ~300 kg of fuel reserve alone, when landing back.
    10 minutes to run-up the engine, taxi the loaden fighter to the runway and ~30 seconds full AB for take-off does burn up to 400 kg of fuel f.e.

    For a Tornado the landing-reserve is 1500 kg of fuel f.e.

    Maybe you can ask a Swedish or Norwegian pilot about that?!
    I've spoken to a friend of mine who's a Gripen technician. Fuel burn data is highly classified, and something that's not avaliable to the general public. So I/he doesn't know where you got your numbers from.

    A 10 minute engine run-up time for a Gripen is not realistic. Quoting him. :2 min run-up time (and that's on a bad day), 30-45 seconds to check the systems, and your good to go. 10 minutes is a loooong time to run up an engine! The JAL would not be pleased with such numbers on high alert.

    Considering the share size of the Gripen,(2/3 of an F-16) the small engine and extremely low drag airframe. A 2000$ per f/h is realistic. And also considering that they lowered the costs from 2500$ to 2000$, means this costs contain more than just fuel. In other words, it wasn't the fuel consumption that was tweaked here.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,043
    Quote Originally Posted by robban View Post
    I've spoken to a friend of mine who's a Gripen technician. Fuel burn data is highly classified, and something that's not avaliable to the general public. So I/he doesn't know where you got your numbers from.

    A 10 minute engine run-up time for a Gripen is not realistic. Quoting him. :2 min run-up time (and that's on a bad day), 30-45 seconds to check the systems, and your good to go. 10 minutes is a loooong time to run up an engine! The JAL would not be pleased with such numbers on high alert.

    Considering the share size of the Gripen,(2/3 of an F-16) the small engine and extremely low drag airframe. A 2000$ per f/h is realistic. And also considering that they lowered the costs from 2500$ to 2000$, means this costs contain more than just fuel. In other words, it wasn't the fuel consumption that was tweaked here.
    You do get the answer you do like to hear and not you have to ask to verify your ideas.
    Non do ask about classified fuel consumptions.
    How long does it take to refuel two tons of JP-8?
    How long is a Gripen airborn during training?

    Your questioned mechanic does not give away military secrets that way.
    It did work about the run-up time altready. For a scramble close to 45 seconds or ab to two minutes related to the temperatures and mission.
    The Swedish do heat heat their "scramble-duty" fighters and keep the electricity supply too.
    But that is not typical as well as a hardstand next to the runway.
    By correct reading you may have noticed, that my "warm-up time" did include the more typical taxi from a hardstand in some distant of the runway, including the typical stop at the "last chance point", where the mechanics do control if all safety-pins were removed really or something untypical can be noticed. After that the Gripen is freed by the tower to move onto the main runway. It is not uncommon, that a pair-take-off will take place. At that moment both will go into full to start the take-off run. All that does take some time and from engine-start at the hardstand to the take-off run on the main-runway 10 minutes are nothing strange or much surplus time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peaY2...eature=related

    Here you can see a more typical take-off procedure for a training flight.

    Till 2:30 for engine start. After a further 1:30 the fighter does move out of the hangar. The taxi time over the taxi-way till last chance point is not shown as well as the time-scale to enter the main runway. Maybe you have an AB near-by and can stop the time there from first engine start till take-off, whatever I will write about that you will not believe it at first.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlPnG...eature=related

    Here you can watch some last chance procedure and taxi. The shortcoming of such footages is, that they have several cut-out to save time for the more spectacular views.

    By the way you can watch too, how fuel can be conserved, by towing the fighter to a ready-area close to the runway.
    Last edited by Sens; 20th October 2009 at 17:09.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,043
    "Like said before, it all depends on the config and weather but maybe this will put it in perspective. An F-16 with external wing tanks 120's on wing tips aim 9 on sta. 2 and acmi pod on sta. 8 starts out with about 12000-12300
    lbs. of fuel and with a 1hr flight it comes back with 3000-3500 lbs..."

    Here some can someone figure out a typical fuel demand for a 1 hr flight.

    The installed thrust of a Gripen is ~70% compared to a F-16C.

    The better sfc in military for a F-16C is off-set by the smoother design of the Gripen to avoid the related claims.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    570
    We can only use ball-park figures.

    The Gripen use approx 2700 liter per produced hour under normal SwAF activities. A normal config would be a jet with droptank and something on the wingtips. Without this added drag and weight the consumption would drop a bit. AB burn is short. Very short.

    The last official info that I know of was published 2006 for the activities year 2005.

    JAS 39 fuel cost per hour 2005 : 6465 kr at a calculated per liter price 2.35kr. (with today's USD@6.8 that makes 950 USD)

    So to take that to a more relevant fuel cost:

    Estimated fuel cost per hour 2009 with fuel @ $3/Gal (5,39 Kr/L @ USD6.8) : 14828 Kr == 2180 USD per Hour

    I don't know if fuel is at 3 USD now, it might be a bit less. Or more. But should be around that number.

    This shows how much the fuel price impact flying costs. When they dicussed the costs for a flying hour back in 2000 (2500 USD) the fuel costs only made up something like 25-30% of that number.

    Since then, the service costs has gone down and the fuel costs gone up (alot!).

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,578
    i wonder how some civil airlines (like ryan) manage to stay so extremly cheap when jetfuel have gone up so much...

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Sign View Post
    i wonder how some civil airlines (like ryan) manage to stay so extremly cheap when jetfuel have gone up so much...
    Airlines have a business unit whose sole job is to procure jet fuel at the lowest cost. This often involves purchase agreements done many months in advance for a set amount of fuel.

    The Pentagon does pretty much the same thing with yearly or multi-year purchase contracts.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    875
    FY96/97 figures:

    C-5: $11341/$10729
    C-17: $5694/$5979
    C-130: $3574/$3381
    C-141: $4813/$4553
    KC-10: $7316/$6921
    KC-135: $3654/$3448

    Source: PACAF Pamphlet 24-1 Airlift Planning Guide

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter G View Post
    FY96/97 figures:

    C-5: $11341/$10729
    C-17: $5694/$5979
    C-130: $3574/$3381
    C-141: $4813/$4553
    KC-10: $7316/$6921
    KC-135: $3654/$3448

    Source: PACAF Pamphlet 24-1 Airlift Planning Guide
    Very strange that the 4-engine C-17 costs more to operate than the 3-engine DC-10. Also, given the fact that the C-17 has about one third of the lifetime of the DC-10, the figures including procurement cost would show the C-17 worst of all.
    A C-17 is about 150 Million USD fly-away, at lifetime of 30k flight hours, each flight hour is charged with at least 5000 USD "airframe charge".
    Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    868
    Combat aircraft flight cost per hour, the experience of ROCAF (Taiwanese Airforce) in 2009:

    1. F-16A/B Block 20: around 4,900 USDs per flight hours.

    2. F-CK-1A/B: around 7,700 USDs per flight hours.

    3. Mirage 2000-5 MK1: around 24,600 USDs per flight hours.


    Because of the severe logistical problem for the M53 engine, the average flight hours of ROCAF pilots for Mirage 2000-5 today is just 8 flight hours per month, which is much, much lower than the requirement of ROCAF for its own fighter pilots (15 flight hours per month).

    The defense minister of Taiwan has declared that if French government / manufacturer can't offer a satisfying solution soon, then ROCAF might be the first airforce on earth to use F-16 C/D Block52 for replacing Mirage 2000-5.


    "American Viper is much, much more reliable and cost-effective than French Mirage 2000-5 !!!"
    ~ The final conclusion of ROCAF's experience for the past 13 years (1997 ~ 2009).
    Last edited by toan; 22nd October 2009 at 11:27.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by toan
    "American Viper is much, much more reliable and cost-effective than French Mirage 2000-5 !!!"
    That's only cause France abandoned Taiwan, everything being equal, Mirage 2000 is one of the cheapest fighters to operate world wide.
    I'm still stunned France did that to Taiwan, and it's a testimony to infamous diplomacy, & some serious pressure from either China or USA, or both.
    Last edited by obligatory; 22nd October 2009 at 13:38.
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    That's only cause France abandoned Taiwan, everything being equal, Mirage 2000 is one of the cheapest fighters to operate world wide.
    France hasn't abandoned Taiwan completely, it still keeps the spare sale and logistic support for Taiwanese Mirage 2000-5 MKI, although it delayed such sale and support for several months last year (At that time, the average flight hours of ROCAF pilots for Mirage 2000-5 is as low as 6 flight hours per month......) because of unknown reason.

    With the "support" of France, ROCAF has to pay the operating cost for Mirage that is three to five times higher than the operating cost for other fighters (F-16 and F-CK-1), and then acquiring a average flight hours that are only 50% ~ 66% of the average flight hours of other fighters.

    This is robbery, not abandonment........
    Last edited by toan; 23rd October 2009 at 04:25.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by giganick1 View Post
    Yes I belive the extra 0 is a typo
    (Slightly Off Point) The Eurofighters that the UK use are already nearly half way through their allocated flying hours. This means the UK has the first airframe crack that i saw when i was in the TMU at Conningsby
    Your joking arnt you!!
    How long has the Typhoon been in RAF service?

    Regards
    Pioneer

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
    Your joking arnt you!!
    How long has the Typhoon been in RAF service?
    Regards
    Pioneer
    It is not joke at all.

    1. The designed service life of Tranche I EF-2000 is 6,000 flight hours.

    2. The productional Eurofighter has begun to be formally delivered to RAF since 2003.

    3. The Eurofighters for RAF today accumulate about 30 flight hours per month --> 360 flight hours per year.

    4. By this rate of accumulation, one by one, the Tranche I Typhoons for RAF will begin to reach their designed service life at the time before 2020 ......
    Last edited by toan; 25th October 2009 at 15:46.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by toan View Post
    Combat aircraft flight cost per hour, the experience of ROCAF (Taiwanese Airforce) in 2009:

    1. F-16A/B Block 20: around 4,900 USDs per flight hours.

    2. F-CK-1A/B: around 7,700 USDs per flight hours.

    3. Mirage 2000-5 MK1: around 24,600 USDs per flight hours.


    Because of the severe logistical problem for the M53 engine, the average flight hours of ROCAF pilots for Mirage 2000-5 today is just 8 flight hours per month, which is much, much lower than the requirement of ROCAF for its own fighter pilots (15 flight hours per month).

    The defense minister of Taiwan has declared that if French government / manufacturer can't offer a satisfying solution soon, then ROCAF might be the first airforce on earth to use F-16 C/D Block52 for replacing Mirage 2000-5.


    "American Viper is much, much more reliable and cost-effective than French Mirage 2000-5 !!!"
    ~ The final conclusion of ROCAF's experience for the past 13 years (1997 ~ 2009).
    According to the following article, the above figures correspond to maintenance costs. Actual flight cost should include fuel and should be considerably higher.
    http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_...&lang=eng_news
    Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    840
    No offence to anybody posting from Taiwan,
    but it's experience could hardly be definitive of Mirage 2000's maintenance costs in general...

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Snow Monkey View Post
    No offence to anybody posting from Taiwan,
    but it's experience could hardly be definitive of Mirage 2000's maintenance costs in general...
    That its NOT the general/average/typical maintenance cost for the Mirage is clear from the article.
    Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    868
    It is definitive enough for the Mirage 2000-5 MK1's maintenance cost in general, considering ROCAF has 55% of this subtype of Mirage 2000.

    I've heard the information that Frenchmen sell the spares and service for Mirage to Taiwan with the price that is three to four times higher than the price of the same things they sell to their own airforce, and such kind of behavior won't make Frenchmen a more honorable businessmen......

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by toan View Post
    It is definitive enough for the Mirage 2000-5 MK1's maintenance cost in general, considering ROCAF has 55% of this subtype of Mirage 2000.

    I've heard the information that Frenchmen sell the spares and service for Mirage to Taiwan with the price that is three to four times higher than the price of the same things they sell to their own airforce, and such kind of behavior won't make Frenchmen a more honorable businessmen......
    Considering that quite a few (not very rich) nations operate M2K/M2K-5, and some even want to upgrade their older M2K to M2K-5, its unlikely that the definitive maintenance costs for this fighter would be at such a scale. There must be certain other issues.
    Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES