Ilmavoimien tulevaisuus
- Viestiketjun aloittaja Museo
- Aloitus PVM
-
- Tagit
- ilmavoimat tulevaisuus
Mikoyan
Ylipäällikkö
Kanada laski 2012 että sen tilaamat 65 kappaletta F35-koneita tulevat maksamaan valtiolle vähintään 45 miljardia dollaria.
Raveni
Greatest Leader
Monet ajattelevat että riittää kun ostaa lento vehkeet. Ei oteta huomioon että se lentäminen, kunnossapitokin maksaa... Vähän sama kun ostaisi ferrarin ja huomaisi että ei ole varaa ajaa sillä saati huoltaa. Ei ne käyttökustannukset ole kokonaisuudesta irrallaan vaikka täällä moni niin kuvitteleekin. Okei ne voidaan jakaa 30 vuoden ajanjaksolle mutta on se silti jumalaton summa ja poissa jostain. Itse veikkaan että grippen on aika vahvoilla kun valintoja tehdään tai sitten hävittäjien määrä jää sellaiseksi tarkastus ilmavoimiksi.
yrjö
Ylipäällikkö
Kuka laski Gripenin vastaavasti laskien maksavan 10 miljardia dollaria?
Mikoyan maanpuolustus.netistäkö?
Tykimies
Kapteeni
Asia ei ole noin yksinkertainen, mutta valintani olisi F35. Poliittisen keskustelun mukaan tavoitteena on säilyttää nykyinen kyky ilmavoimilla ja tietenkin parantaa sitä mahdollisuuksien mukaan. Vaatiiko se saman määrän koneita kuin nykyään? Siitä tässä on kysymys.
Raha toki merkitsee paljon, mutta ei se tätä hankintaa yksinään ratkaise.
Raveni
Greatest Leader
The F-35 O&S Cost Cover-up
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published Feb. 04, 2014)
By guest contributor Don Bacon
The F-35 selected acquisition report (SAR) reported last Spring that there had been no progress in reducing its staggering $1 trillion, 50-year life-cycle cost. Then in June 2013 it was reported that "the company and the U.S. military are taking aim at a more vexing problem: the cost of flying and maintaining the new warplane." Not only was the total cost stratospheric but the cost per flying hour was much higher than the legacy fleet at $31,922.
What could be done to cut high operations and sustainment (O&S) costs? International customers were being scared away by high production costs, and particularly by high operating cost.
The F-35 program office had the answer. Simply announce that the costs are lower! Why not? The result:
Pentagon Cuts F-35 Operating Estimate Below $1 Trillion
WASHINGTON (Reuters), Aug 21, 2013 - "The U.S. government has slashed its estimate for the long-term operating costs of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets by more than 20 percent to under $1 trillion, according to a senior defense official, a move that could boost international support for the program."
That arbitrary announcement out of the F-35 program office that operating cost had dropped from $1.1 trillion to $857 million didn't fly very high. (See related story—Ed).On September 6 the Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall announced that there would be a review of F-35 operating costs. Kendall indicated that the program office's estimate might have been overly optimistic.
In fact the GAO has reported that F-35 operating and support costs (O&S) are currently projected to be 60 percent higher than those of the existing aircraft it will replace.
“We’re … looking at that number,” Kendall said. “The official number is still the one we put up in the SAR [selected acquisition report]. We’re going to do a review of F-35 this fall. We’ll get another estimate out of CAPE [Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation] for that and we’ll probably make some adjustments.
On October 6, 2013 Kyra Hawn, spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s F-35 program office, said a high-level Defense Acquisition Board meeting was expected to proceed on Monday despite the partial government shutdown. The meeting has already been postponed several times.
Well that CAPE meeting came and went, with no news on F-35 operating cost. The cost data must have been bad and so it had to be covered up, just like other cost data (production cost, etc.) on the F-35. We did get some PR fluff out of the meeting, though. “While risks remain, progress on the F-35 program at this point has been adequate to support a decision to budget for increased rates,” Frank Kendall, under-secretary for acquisition, said in a decision memo.
If it was good cost news supporting an increase in production rates, then why didn't Kendall release the data? Apparently the opposite was true, the data was bad. And now we have the data, in the FY2013 F-35 test report, and it isn't pretty.
FY13 DOT&E Report
-- Mean Flight Hours Between Critical Failure (MFHBCF)
variant--threshold/observed
F-35A--20/4.5
F-35B--12/3.0
F-35C--14/2.7
-- Mean Corrective Maintenance Time for Critical Failure (MCMTCF)
variant--threshold/observed/FY12 Report
F-35A--4.0/12.1/9.3
F-35B--4.5/15.5/8.0
F-35C--4.0/9.6/6.6
So you fly the F-35A for 4.5 hours, get a critical failure, and then it takes 12.1 hours to fix it, or nearly three hours longer than it took last year. (That's hours, not manhours; Eglin AFB has seventeen mechanics per F-35.)
Similarly with the F-35B -- fly it for 3 hours, critical failure, then corrective maintenance takes 15.5 hours (7.5 hours more than last year).
The F-35C will fly for only 2.7 hours before 9.6 hours for corrective maintenance time. (Only one engine, too, out over the deep blue water.)
If anybody thinks the acquisition cost is high, and it is, it will be totally eclipsed by the operating cost. An independent audit by KPMG has estimated the cost of buying and operating the F-35 warplanes at $600-million per jet, two-thirds of that operating cost.
Captain Overstreet of the F-35 program office warned in November that while development costs are high for the F-35, they will be “dwarfed” by the sustainability costs. Back in May 2011 Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition Ashton Carter described current projected costs for the F-35 as “unacceptable.”
All of this reality runs against what the early F-35 promises were.
-- From the 1997 doc -- "The Affordable Solution - JSF":
Tactical Aircraft Affordability Objective 1997: R&D 6%, Production 54%, total dev & prod 60%, O&S 40%.
-- The actual 2014 test data is way different:
dev & prod -- $397B = 26%, O&S -- $1,100B = 74%, total -- $1,497
So the F-35 has gone from an initial-operating cost ratio of 60-40 to 26-74, and that's with much higher production costs. Nobody can afford that, especially foreign customers -- which is why it's been covered up.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/151303/a-look-at-f_35’s-true-o&s-cost.html
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published Feb. 04, 2014)
By guest contributor Don Bacon
The F-35 selected acquisition report (SAR) reported last Spring that there had been no progress in reducing its staggering $1 trillion, 50-year life-cycle cost. Then in June 2013 it was reported that "the company and the U.S. military are taking aim at a more vexing problem: the cost of flying and maintaining the new warplane." Not only was the total cost stratospheric but the cost per flying hour was much higher than the legacy fleet at $31,922.
What could be done to cut high operations and sustainment (O&S) costs? International customers were being scared away by high production costs, and particularly by high operating cost.
The F-35 program office had the answer. Simply announce that the costs are lower! Why not? The result:
Pentagon Cuts F-35 Operating Estimate Below $1 Trillion
WASHINGTON (Reuters), Aug 21, 2013 - "The U.S. government has slashed its estimate for the long-term operating costs of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets by more than 20 percent to under $1 trillion, according to a senior defense official, a move that could boost international support for the program."
That arbitrary announcement out of the F-35 program office that operating cost had dropped from $1.1 trillion to $857 million didn't fly very high. (See related story—Ed).On September 6 the Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall announced that there would be a review of F-35 operating costs. Kendall indicated that the program office's estimate might have been overly optimistic.
In fact the GAO has reported that F-35 operating and support costs (O&S) are currently projected to be 60 percent higher than those of the existing aircraft it will replace.
“We’re … looking at that number,” Kendall said. “The official number is still the one we put up in the SAR [selected acquisition report]. We’re going to do a review of F-35 this fall. We’ll get another estimate out of CAPE [Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation] for that and we’ll probably make some adjustments.
On October 6, 2013 Kyra Hawn, spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s F-35 program office, said a high-level Defense Acquisition Board meeting was expected to proceed on Monday despite the partial government shutdown. The meeting has already been postponed several times.
Well that CAPE meeting came and went, with no news on F-35 operating cost. The cost data must have been bad and so it had to be covered up, just like other cost data (production cost, etc.) on the F-35. We did get some PR fluff out of the meeting, though. “While risks remain, progress on the F-35 program at this point has been adequate to support a decision to budget for increased rates,” Frank Kendall, under-secretary for acquisition, said in a decision memo.
If it was good cost news supporting an increase in production rates, then why didn't Kendall release the data? Apparently the opposite was true, the data was bad. And now we have the data, in the FY2013 F-35 test report, and it isn't pretty.
FY13 DOT&E Report
-- Mean Flight Hours Between Critical Failure (MFHBCF)
variant--threshold/observed
F-35A--20/4.5
F-35B--12/3.0
F-35C--14/2.7
-- Mean Corrective Maintenance Time for Critical Failure (MCMTCF)
variant--threshold/observed/FY12 Report
F-35A--4.0/12.1/9.3
F-35B--4.5/15.5/8.0
F-35C--4.0/9.6/6.6
So you fly the F-35A for 4.5 hours, get a critical failure, and then it takes 12.1 hours to fix it, or nearly three hours longer than it took last year. (That's hours, not manhours; Eglin AFB has seventeen mechanics per F-35.)
Similarly with the F-35B -- fly it for 3 hours, critical failure, then corrective maintenance takes 15.5 hours (7.5 hours more than last year).
The F-35C will fly for only 2.7 hours before 9.6 hours for corrective maintenance time. (Only one engine, too, out over the deep blue water.)
If anybody thinks the acquisition cost is high, and it is, it will be totally eclipsed by the operating cost. An independent audit by KPMG has estimated the cost of buying and operating the F-35 warplanes at $600-million per jet, two-thirds of that operating cost.
Captain Overstreet of the F-35 program office warned in November that while development costs are high for the F-35, they will be “dwarfed” by the sustainability costs. Back in May 2011 Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition Ashton Carter described current projected costs for the F-35 as “unacceptable.”
All of this reality runs against what the early F-35 promises were.
-- From the 1997 doc -- "The Affordable Solution - JSF":
Tactical Aircraft Affordability Objective 1997: R&D 6%, Production 54%, total dev & prod 60%, O&S 40%.
-- The actual 2014 test data is way different:
dev & prod -- $397B = 26%, O&S -- $1,100B = 74%, total -- $1,497
So the F-35 has gone from an initial-operating cost ratio of 60-40 to 26-74, and that's with much higher production costs. Nobody can afford that, especially foreign customers -- which is why it's been covered up.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/151303/a-look-at-f_35’s-true-o&s-cost.html
Textronin Scorpion olisi vielä edullisempi ja jotkut puhtaat harjoituskoneet sitäkin halvempia.
Mikoyan
Ylipäällikkö
Kanada laski sen itse, kun se neuvotteli Saabin kanssa Gripenistä. Hinta oli 9 miljardia, johon sisältyivät 65 kappaleen Gripen E:n elinkaarikustannukset 40 vuoden ajaksi.
Mikoyan
Ylipäällikkö
Ei sinnepäinkään. F35 kustannusten on ennustettu jopa kolminkertaistuvan nykyisestä.
Raveni
Greatest Leader
Toisaalta meillä on nyt koneita tietty määrä ja niillä kyetään tekemään vuorokaudessa tietty määrä lentosuoritteita. On ne sitten torjunta tehtäviä tai maavoimien taistelun tukemista. Jos konemäärää vähennetään tarkoittaa se sitä että vuorokaudessa voidaan tehdä vähemmän. Meillä on yksinkertaisesti vähemmän koneita ilmassa. Ainakin allekirjoittaneen mielestä tämä on ongelmallista on siinä tulevassa koneessa stealth tai ei se ei sillä stealhillä muutu voittamattomaksi tai kykene vääristämään aika avaruutta ollakseen kahdessa paikassa samaan aikaan.
Tykimies
Kapteeni
Niin valitettavaa kuin se onkin, en usko että nykyisilläkään hävittäjillä on suunniteltu puolustettavan koko Suomen ilmatilaa. Tärkeintä on puolustaa tärkeitä kohteita ja valtaosa niistä sijaitsee jossakin muualla kuin pohjoisessa Suomessa. Ehkä päättäjät sitten odottavat, että tarvittaessa Ruotsi puolustaa Lapin ilmatilaa.
yrjö
Ylipäällikkö
Uusimpien tietojen mukaan F-35A käyttökuluja annetaan per vuosi sisältäen 250h lentämistä. Voiko polttoaineen kulutuksen kuvitella olevan n. saman tai jonkun verran päälle sen mitä nykyinen HN-kalusto kuluttaa? Netissä väitetään yhdysvaltalaisen F-35 mekaanikon paygraden olevan korkeampi kuin F-16 mekaanikon. Lisäksi ostotilanteessa neuvotellaan käytännössä aina tietty määrä varaosia mukaan, kaiketi kulutusosiakin jolloin osa osista on tavallaan jo ostettu kun esim. Yhdsyvalloissa ei ole. Polttoaineen hinta vaihtelee eri aikoina ja eri maissa.
Suomen ilmavoimille oli ainakin jossain vaiheessa pantu alarajaksi 100h lentämistä per ukko ja kokonaisuudessa 9000h per vuosi HN-kalustolla. Polttoaineen hinnannousun vuoksi näitäkin lukuja arvioitiin jouduttavan madaltamaan n. 7000 lentotuntiin vuodessa. Silloin se tekisi 145h-112h per kone kun koneita on 62. Isot maat lentää enemmän.
Sanoisin, että Suomen lopullista F-35 lentotuntihintaa ei voi sanoa samaksi kuin mitä muut isot valtiot ovat sen laskeneet maksavan.
"The cost of operation of the F-35 appears to be in a whole other league. Jane’s cites Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) estimates for the conventional F-35 A, assuming operational service over 30 years with 200 hours per year for each aircraft, to amount to USD 21000 per hour of flight."
http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes
Suomen ilmavoimille oli ainakin jossain vaiheessa pantu alarajaksi 100h lentämistä per ukko ja kokonaisuudessa 9000h per vuosi HN-kalustolla. Polttoaineen hinnannousun vuoksi näitäkin lukuja arvioitiin jouduttavan madaltamaan n. 7000 lentotuntiin vuodessa. Silloin se tekisi 145h-112h per kone kun koneita on 62. Isot maat lentää enemmän.
Sanoisin, että Suomen lopullista F-35 lentotuntihintaa ei voi sanoa samaksi kuin mitä muut isot valtiot ovat sen laskeneet maksavan.
"The cost of operation of the F-35 appears to be in a whole other league. Jane’s cites Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) estimates for the conventional F-35 A, assuming operational service over 30 years with 200 hours per year for each aircraft, to amount to USD 21000 per hour of flight."
http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes
Jos Gripen NG painii samassa sarjassa Lightning kakkosen kanssa niin silloin Textronin Scorpion painii Gripenin kanssa.
"Voiko polttoaineen kulutuksen kuvitella olevan n. saman tai jonkun verran päälle sen mitä nykyinen HN-kalusto kuluttaa?"
Kanadalaisen raportin mukaan F-35A kuluttaa 26% enemmän polttoainetta kuin Hornet C/D. Todennäköisesti ainoa kone joka voi lentää turvassa Venäjän 20 ja 30-luvun ilmapuolustusjärjelmiä vastaan on sellainen joka lentää puiden latvojen yläpuolella.
Kanadalaisen raportin mukaan F-35A kuluttaa 26% enemmän polttoainetta kuin Hornet C/D. Todennäköisesti ainoa kone joka voi lentää turvassa Venäjän 20 ja 30-luvun ilmapuolustusjärjelmiä vastaan on sellainen joka lentää puiden latvojen yläpuolella.
Raveni
Greatest Leader
Grippen NG On suht nykyaikainen hävittäjä. Siitä ehkä puuttuu ehkä stealth mutta muutoin se on hyvin verkottunut ja omaa hyvät sensorit. Scorpionia voisi verrata ehkä hawkiin.
Ed Monton
Korpraali
Hintakin suunnilleen sama, yksi miljardi/50kpl* ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion ), itse uusisin nuo Hawkit nyt noihin Scorpioneihin ja hankkisin 30 SuperHornetia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet ) nykyisten lisäksi, hinta olisi yhteensä noin kolme miljardia tällä kertaa. Samalla kuitenkin seuraisimme mihin suuntaan nuo häivekoneet kehittyvät ja minkälaista kilpailua sille saralle tulee ja n. 10v kuluttua hankittaisiin häivekoneita sitten. Poliittisestikin helpompaa saada tuollainen rahoitus läpi, raha kun on kiven alla.
* Eiköhän nyt yhden euron tienaamiseen mene sama aika kuin 80-luvun alussa markan?
Mikoyan
Ylipäällikkö
Uudempi JAS 39E (NG) käyttää muuten teknologiaa, joka kykenee havaitsemaan myös stealth-koneet.
http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/new-gripen-aims-low-cost-high-capability
Viimeksi muokattu: