Cost of operating Military planes
- Thread starter ozone
- Start date
fiveninerzero
Well-Known Member
These figures can never be used for an apple-to-apple comparison with airliners, since a lot of these aircraft are one-off and only produced for use in a single organization--which skyrockets the figures. That said, there's no denying that these are expensive to operate considering these typically use last generation's engines (low bypass turbofans/turbojets) and guzzling afterburners.
The USG definitely isn't in the business of turning a profit, or increasing RASM/decreasing CASM.
The USG definitely isn't in the business of turning a profit, or increasing RASM/decreasing CASM.
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
I contend that we couldn't just double or triple pilot production in a conflict the way that we did in WWII or Vietnam to some extent. It's not that pilot training is expensive... it's that we couldn't possibly throw money at pilot losses to make more even if we wanted to. This is why pilot retention is so important. The cuts to the F-16 school house a few years ago are still killing us.
pressclick
Well-Known Member
When the Chinese flip their secret switch and all of the gizmos go cold, it might be useful to have something that is mean, dumb, ugly, and can shoot straight.
Unfortunately it isn't as simple an option as it once was. With all the current upgrades, the A-10 is essentially a slow F-16 now. But your point is still a good one in terms of maintaining flexibility.
av8tr1
"Never tell me the odds!"
LOL, I flew 58s, Alpha and Charlie models, those were the old unarmored models without the ball on top. Our projected life expectancy was 30 seconds on contact with the enemy. We were told when shot down to aim to crash close to the enemy so the our guys knew where to place their ammo.
Nothing like being a piloted marker round.
It was the same in Korea with the combined Cobra/Kiowa units out of places like Canp LaGuardia with 1/2 attack...another speedbump for the North Koreans much like the rest of the northern camps here, lol.
pressclick
Well-Known Member
You hear those life expectancy stats continually in the military. I always wondered if there was actually some sort of study behind them.
A machine gunner would live for x seconds.
A forward observer would live for x seconds.
A medic would live for x seconds.
If all true, I figure a ground war with the Soviets would have been over in about 4 minutes and 37 seconds.
A machine gunner would live for x seconds.
A forward observer would live for x seconds.
A medic would live for x seconds.
If all true, I figure a ground war with the Soviets would have been over in about 4 minutes and 37 seconds.
The problem was there would be so much lead flying back and forth....even their Frogfoot and Hind guys would be getting whacked pretty good....that these losses would've made it go nuke pretty quick
av8tr1
"Never tell me the odds!"
Yeah, the military does actually do those studies and updates them regularly.
The point is to figure how many troops and equipment is needed for engagement. So a bunch of people get together regularly to wargame potential scenarios. I know that at least one even exists for alien attacks.
It's a lot easier today with computers crunching the numbers but the whole point of the big war games like Red Flag or Polar Wind is to give us an idea of battlefield statistics.
For example if facing a carrier strength Navy off the coast of California what would it take to defeat? So we throw a party and pretend to duke it out and see what happens. We take the numbers from that exercise, such as 5 F16s took 5 minutes to destroy 8 SU-23s. X number of missiles were deployed, X number of gun rounds were expelled, and 4 F16s returned. Somehow they take the numbers from that and can tell a F16 pilot has a 20% chance of being shot down in the first 5 minutes of engagement.
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
Unarmed and Unafraid. Recon by sacrifice!!
av8tr1
"Never tell me the odds!"
You know it! Scouts Out!
Lawman
Well-Known Member
There are times where the model completely changes and the whole thing has to be looked at again.
When BMP1 came out western observers crapped themselves at first. Here was a vehicle that could move a mechanized rifle regiment that would be the advanced guard for the main armored force across any terrain found in Europe. It was Amphib along with the forward recon BRDM and BTR elements. Really the only thing that was going to keep the Soviets from moving at 35 km an hour across Europe continuously was having to stop to put the snorkel kits on the tanks to ford rivers in Europe which occur about every 20-25 km. what we later learned was that the BMP wore it's gas tanks for armor so it's ability to actually fight was severely haphazard even though it's mobility was astounding. They would flat roll over infantry but the moment they ran into Bradley's or Abrams they were dead.
Radar directed guns led directly to Hellfire missile for the same reason. Hawg had Mavericks which were the PGM to keep him outside the range of a ZSU since he didn't have the knots or altitude to throw a laser guided PGM at one. Helicopters were still slinging TOWs which were maxing out well within the ZSUs range so we needed something to stretch us outside that area. In comes hellfire taking us from 3km out to 6-8km and suddenly helicopters can engage a main armored force because it's imbedded SA-8 and ZSU cover can't hurt us and we can get in under the radar horizon of the bigger SA-6/11s.
Also you hear the term "lethality." That's actually not dead. Lethality by the NATO standard means that the effect against a target is such that within 5 minutes it is incapable of any offensive action. Essentially either broken down on the battle field or too worried about bleeding to keep charging the hill.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
I think we've talked about this before, but Sweetness was one of my SQ/CCs when I was an IFF IP 10-ish years ago.
Not until the D model IIR Mavericks did we really have a good standoff with those. The original EO Mavs, the A and the Scene Magnification B, were still very short range due to target mil size needed to lock on, as well as just being able to ID the target in the screen, resulting in shots taken inside 2.5 to 3 miles with the A, and about an extra mile standoff with the B. Still was revolutionary for its day though even with these limitations.
Yeah the LGBs, even though we could carry them, it was literally a "why bother" due to initially only having primarily low altitude tactics anyway, then when more medium altitude tactics came along, the lack of energy for delivery and the fact we (then) couldn't self lase, made it still not worth carrying.
Apaches finally get rid of deep attack as a tactic?
Yeah he was an attached IFF IP at the time when I flew my surface rides and low level rides with him.
xargos
Well-Known Member
Let me cite Colonel C Haskins:
"During the Cold War the Soviets Had an absolutely potent and efficient ground force[...] " it was formidable but yet also fairly predictable"
What I got from this thread is that there's a optimal solution for a problem. The question is : is the A-10 really that much different than an F-16 from operational cost standpoint? It still needs a runway, crew, fuel , weapons etc...
I read that the army changed their thinking to include what they call "art of design" = more creative approach to solving problems. For a creative commander an F-35 maybe offering the exact flexibility they need. And since there's less tanks, no need to flood the battlefield anymore?
But really who can predict anything anymore.
"War is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables" (Robert McNamara, "Fog of War").
And speaking of cost and toolboxes: I've seen it many times, that someone would use the most expensive and complicated tool just because he could.The most expensive calculator, the latest Ipad, etc.Heck , even Cub has a glass panel nowadays. Looking at the costs of waging wars this phenomenon has ceased to surprise me.
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
With respect to the Cub comment, it may be because insurance companies and avionics companies don't run wars. That is just a guess though.
xargos
Well-Known Member
You get the general picture
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Meh - and a big one. I don't realistically see anyone on earth we'll be fighting for the extended future that we don't woefully outclass with the equipment we've already got. Not to say that we shouldn't be working to advance our military, but c'mon. It's $44,000/hr to fly an F22... That's a lot of freaking money - not only that, but the F35 program is quoted at a trillion dollars over the lifespan of the program - we've already paid for it, yeah, but I'd rather see us spending money on other things to be frank, how much would it cost to pay off every person's student loans in the country? About a trillion dollars. How much infrastructure could be fixed around the country with this kind of money?
Now, as someone pointed out, MANPADs are a threat to the Tucanos and Air Tractors out there, but I imagine there a huge threat to the Kiowas, the Blackhawks, and the Apaches that are doing the "nitty-gritty" work down low in a similar environment to what the Tucano would be in - and while we are losing helicopters, we're not losing them left and right, and people still sign up to fly em'. I dunno, give them to the army then if the AF is too good for em'.
We're not going to fight the Chinese, we're not going to fight the Russians, realistically, who on Earth are we going to fight that will remotely challenge our air superiority at all in the next couple of decades? I'm not saying, "don't be prepared," but realistically what the hell are we spending our money on?