Cost of operating Military planes
- Thread starter ozone
- Start date
ryan1234
Desensitized Member
The actual cost for operating any aircraft is significantly different than the numbers quoted.... If you were to actually look at it from a "business" perspective. Direct vs indirect, Etc. Everything from sortie generation and requirements, to how many times jets are ground aborted due to misc fallout, avionics supports, parts swaps, maintainer salaries, fire rescue salaries, all support salaries, etc. So many variables go into the real numbers and DoD numbers have always been inaccurate.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Depends on the monetary value you put on the pilot that dies when it gets shot down.
As said in the previous threads on A-10 retirement, even the Hog isn't going to last long in a denied environment, despite the level of hyperbole that has been laid on it in the last decade by those ignorant of worldwide surface to air threats.
Something less capable and more vulnerable than the Hog is simply going to make pilots into chum. They may be cheaper at initial purchase, but with pilots that cost multimillions to train and grow who are lost with the airplane, the real cost of the airplane rises at a breathtaking rate when there is an actual threat it is fling against.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
...said nobody who had to face the possibility of flying into a modern SAM and AAA threat environment.
Autothrust Blue
”…trusting ze process…”
And the funny thing is, this isn't anything new, as some of the hyperbole tries to make it out to be. It's been known since the Fulda Gap days, that A-10s operating near and around the FEBA against even threats back then: ZSU-23/57, SA-6/8, SA-7/14, even Mi-24; Hogs had an average life of 2 to 3 sorties against a full-on Warsaw Pact push. They, along with some of our furthest forward units, were really a speed bump. That was it's projected survival rate 30 years ago.
The great equalizer, last ditch of course, being the tactical planes with nukes such as F-16/111, and the Pershing and GLCM SRBMs that were then in Germany and England, respectively.
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
See, this is where the whole concept of JC actually works.
I will admit to being totally ignorant of the battlefield realities and in the past thought, "Hey, the A-10 is a proven platform? Why bin it for something more complex and expensive?"
You and @MikeD patiently explained the fallacies inherent in that logic to me, and I learned something interesting and new. I learned what "permissive" vs. "denied" environments are, why even something like the Tucano isn't a good idea here. (sidebar: an ex-AF fighter pilot I know suggested that the Afghans should fly something like the DeHavilland Beaver, because it's simple enough that even they can fix it, and they're less likely to kill themselves in it.)
So. Yeah. I learned something really interesting as a result of this discussion. Forced me to consider facts I hadn't thought of and....
....gasp....
....wait for it....
....I actually changed my opinion in the face of better information!
Perish the thought on the internet, I know, but there ya go.
....I actually changed my opinion in the face of better information!
Perish the thought on the internet, I know, but there ya go.
Don't get me wrong, there is a place for aircraft like an armed Tucano or planes like the PA-48. They are mainly for providing CAS and light attack in counter-insurgency type, lower (ground-to-air) threat environments such as Afghanistan, etc. Planes like that will work well in those environments, as well as the A-10. The A-10 is more survivable in a heavier air defense environment, but not by much.
The problem are the supporters who, while well intentioned, either don't know this, or don't want to believe it since they're caught up in the nostalgia. I tend to find A-10 fanboys (who have never flown or employed the thing) in the former, and a number of my former A-10 cohorts in the latter group.
All of these planes are tools, tools that are good for some jobs, and not as good for others; like any tool in a toolbox.
RDoug
Well-Known Member
I was a controller at RAF Lakenheath in '76-'77. Speed bump is right. We were told that our mission was merely to hold out for 48 to 72 hours. That was our projected life expectancy facing a full-out Warsaw Pact invasion, even in England.
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
"WarGames" happened to be on HBO last night. I had those same thoughts watching WOPR run through the battle simulations.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I mean to say though, where are we going to face that kind of threat in our next engagement - which is likely to be against more poor, illiterate rabble - rouser types?
Any big time SAM and AAA threats we can knock out with the expensive equipment (f22, f35, and so on) and we send in tucanos and the like to work in a coin fashion like cheap helicopter gunships.
pete2800
'Member?
RDoug
Well-Known Member
But you're still going to face a potential MANPAD threat regardless. MANPADs are getting cheaper and more readily available, and the best defense against them is altitude. Altitude works directly against the design philosophy of the A-10. But I'm not a fighter/attack pilot, and never played one on T.V., so what do I know?
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Whatever, just wait until I "haters gonna hate" that bitch all the way to the gate.
That's the problem, that you'll never get all the larger SAMs even with F-22/35 or Tomahawk missiles, as most nowdays are mobile and on tracked vehicles [ie- they move around], versus being fixed sites like the old SA-2/3/5 are. Any first or even second world nation (and some third world, apart from Afghan, etc) will have threats both existing and remaining, which will make ops by these aircraft unsustainable. Even in Desert Storm, on or about the time you were born, A-10s had to be pulled back from hunting Iraqi SCUD surface-surface missiles due to the losses they were taking working deep beyond the FLOT, including two lost in one day from the same flight, killing one guy and the other being a POW (who was later an IP of mine back in the day). Central/South America, some African nations style scenario or Afghan? Those types of planes will have a better chance, although AAA will always be a problem.
If your life expectancy in England was 48-72 hours, I wonder what the life expectancy of the large West German bases at Hahn/Bitburg/Spang/Sembach/Zweibruken were expected to be? Heck of alot less I imagine.
At altitude, nowdays, the A-10s drop PGMs. But then, so does everyone else. Back in my day we weren't PGM capable in the A-10 (with the exception of LGBs that someone else had to laser for us, so why bother carrying them). We were dumb munitions, gun, and Maverick missiles only. So one of our training scenario types was dropping dumb bombs from altitude with a 10K floor as part of our practice, but the accuracy was spotty for CAS obviously, and we were in the envelope of SAMs and heavy caliber AAA. Taking it down for our lower altitude deliveries we could avoid the larger SAMs, but we were now in MANPAD and smaller caliber AAA territory. So it was a pick-your-poison. Sometimes, you had no choice, such as a weather deck (before the days when A-10s could carry [GPS guided] JDAMs.
Last edited:
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Well, this is the precise crux of the issue. I don't know who the next threat is any more than you do. Who was our most "likely" next adversary on 10 September 2001? Who was it on 6 December 1941?
Is it better to be well-equipped to battle dirt farmers on the day that China or Russia or India decide to declare war on the US, or better to be equipped to battle peer-nations on the day the dirt farmers attack? Which of those two scenarios carries the biggest risk compared to the most significant impact to our national security? I can't think of a single intelligent military strategist in history who would have a tough time answering either question.
As has been said before, this is a political question, not a military one (and, as Clausewitz said, war is simply an extension of politics by other means). The Pentagon equips the military to be capable of the requirements of the National Security Strategy. The NSS comes out of the White House. It is a statement of political doctrine, not military tactics. Based on the last couple NSSs, the White House does not agree with your assessment of the next "likely" threat.
As said earlier, is it really "better" to have 10 shot-down Tucanos with 10 dead pilots or one F-35 that hit the target and will fly another mission later on today? Does anyone extoll the virtue of how much money was saved when the flag-draped caskets come back on the C-17?
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Oh, trust me -- I am absolutely afflicted with the same unabashed love of radials and tailwheels.
Unfortunately, nostalgia is a terrible indicator of the relative prowess of a weapon system.