Military Costs Per Hour - The Typhoon
Discussion
I was chatting to a couple of ex-RAF chaps yesterday and they happened to mention that the Typhoon costs the princely sum of £350,000 per hour to run. 
Is this really the case?
If it is, why the don't we (the UK) have a dedicated old-tech ground attack / close air-support aircraft for use in uncontested airspace - something akin to the A-10 but cheaper?
<awaits the we did it was the harrier comments>
Is this really the case?
If it is, why the don't we (the UK) have a dedicated old-tech ground attack / close air-support aircraft for use in uncontested airspace - something akin to the A-10 but cheaper?
<awaits the we did it was the harrier comments>
Zaxxon said:
I thought it was £88,000 per hour. Still a lot. But then again it is possibly the second most advanced fighter in the air at the moment.
As far as ground attack. How about a sqn of Skyraider's or a Bronco's. Good loiter time and enough firepower.
Pipe dream though.
They could be wrong - one of the reasons I asked the question.As far as ground attack. How about a sqn of Skyraider's or a Bronco's. Good loiter time and enough firepower.
Pipe dream though.
It just seems crazy that the MoD have always b
hed about lack of funds and yet, we're effectively using a Ferrari Enzo as our shopping car.Zaxxon said:
I thought it was £88,000 per hour. Still a lot. But then again it is possibly the second most advanced fighter in the air at the moment.
As far as ground attack. How about a sqn of Skyraider's or a Bronco's. Good loiter time and enough firepower.
Pipe dream though.
How about just using the AH-64's that the army already has As far as ground attack. How about a sqn of Skyraider's or a Bronco's. Good loiter time and enough firepower.
Pipe dream though.
Perhaps based from HMS Ocean since she is due to be deployed the med anyway later this yearHow was the £350K-per-hour figure arrived at?
If you consider that it takes the efforts of a significant portion of the entire RAF to generate one operational hour of a front-line aircraft (and 'twas always thus) you could argue that the £350k figure is on the low side.
Truth is that maintaining multiple types increases the cost of supporting maintenance organisations, training programmes, parts supply and so on.
So, once you factor in the cost of keeping your cheap-as-chips low-tech CAS type on the fleet, even before they get airborne they've generated enough costs to make it suddenly look like not being such a good deal after all.
On the other hand, we could try strapping some rocket pods onto the Yak.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Yakovl...
£200 an hour, cash in hand, no targets further than 2km from the end of the runway. Bring your own footpump for the nosewheel.
If you consider that it takes the efforts of a significant portion of the entire RAF to generate one operational hour of a front-line aircraft (and 'twas always thus) you could argue that the £350k figure is on the low side.
Truth is that maintaining multiple types increases the cost of supporting maintenance organisations, training programmes, parts supply and so on.
So, once you factor in the cost of keeping your cheap-as-chips low-tech CAS type on the fleet, even before they get airborne they've generated enough costs to make it suddenly look like not being such a good deal after all.
On the other hand, we could try strapping some rocket pods onto the Yak.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Yakovl...
£200 an hour, cash in hand, no targets further than 2km from the end of the runway. Bring your own footpump for the nosewheel.
Aircraft Financial Year 2010-11 Cost Per Hour
Tornado GR4 35,000
Typhoon 70,000
Harrier GR7/GR9 37,000
Tornado F3 43,000
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-25...
Tornado GR4 35,000
Typhoon 70,000
Harrier GR7/GR9 37,000
Tornado F3 43,000
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-25...
Odie said:
Zaxxon said:
I thought it was £88,000 per hour. Still a lot. But then again it is possibly the second most advanced fighter in the air at the moment.
As far as ground attack. How about a sqn of Skyraider's or a Bronco's. Good loiter time and enough firepower.
Pipe dream though.
How about just using the AH-64's that the army already has As far as ground attack. How about a sqn of Skyraider's or a Bronco's. Good loiter time and enough firepower.
Pipe dream though.
Perhaps based from HMS Ocean since she is due to be deployed the med anyway later this year
JonnyFive said:
Wonder if a few AC130s could do the job..
Theres a reason the USAF were hessitant to deploy them to Libya. Then when they did they pulled them out again very quickly.Over the whole history of the AC-130, 43 were built. 8 have been lost, most of those having been shot down. In Vietnam/South East Asia 6 were lost along with 75 crewmembers.
Since then one was shot down over Kuwait (which if it was a Tornado operating its usual laser guided bomb dropping height, would have been invulnerable) and one was lost over Somalia.
Problem is that if one AC130 is lost, you have lost 12-15 crew. Is that politically acceptable?
Theres so many man portable and truck mounted anti aircraft weapons, it puts cheap low flying aircraft at risk. With smaller close air support types the question comes up of where to fly them from. The cheap simple types like super tucano being mentioned for Afghanistan would have nowhere to fly from, be incapable of air to air refuelling and not have enough defensive aids.
Really the cheapest option I can see is Reaper/Predator.
ninja-lewis said:
Aircraft Financial Year 2010-11 Cost Per Hour
Tornado GR4 35,000
Typhoon 70,000
Harrier GR7/GR9 37,000
Tornado F3 43,000
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-25...
These are the 'all in' costs.Tornado GR4 35,000
Typhoon 70,000
Harrier GR7/GR9 37,000
Tornado F3 43,000
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-25...
The RAF also have a 'second tier' cost per a/c list which are the equivilent of an 'civvie type inter-department' cost for a 'flying hour' ..... a bit like a civvie 'wet hire' rate in GA, for want of a better phrase.
These costs are something in the 10-15% range (from fading memory) of the 'all in' costs on that list above.
Mr Dave said:
Theres a reason the USAF were hessitant to deploy them to Libya. Then when they did they pulled them out again very quickly.
Over the whole history of the AC-130, 43 were built. 8 have been lost, most of those having been shot down. In Vietnam/South East Asia 6 were lost along with 75 crewmembers.
Since then one was shot down over Kuwait (which if it was a Tornado operating its usual laser guided bomb dropping height, would have been invulnerable) and one was lost over Somalia.
Problem is that if one AC130 is lost, you have lost 12-15 crew. Is that politically acceptable?
Theres so many man portable and truck mounted anti aircraft weapons, it puts cheap low flying aircraft at risk. With smaller close air support types the question comes up of where to fly them from. The cheap simple types like super tucano being mentioned for Afghanistan would have nowhere to fly from, be incapable of air to air refuelling and not have enough defensive aids.
Really the cheapest option I can see is Reaper/Predator.
So it's the range thing that kills off the use of a cheap CAS platform then I guess. Over the whole history of the AC-130, 43 were built. 8 have been lost, most of those having been shot down. In Vietnam/South East Asia 6 were lost along with 75 crewmembers.
Since then one was shot down over Kuwait (which if it was a Tornado operating its usual laser guided bomb dropping height, would have been invulnerable) and one was lost over Somalia.
Problem is that if one AC130 is lost, you have lost 12-15 crew. Is that politically acceptable?
Theres so many man portable and truck mounted anti aircraft weapons, it puts cheap low flying aircraft at risk. With smaller close air support types the question comes up of where to fly them from. The cheap simple types like super tucano being mentioned for Afghanistan would have nowhere to fly from, be incapable of air to air refuelling and not have enough defensive aids.
Really the cheapest option I can see is Reaper/Predator.
Aeropilot / Lweis thanks for the info. Cheaper than was stated by the ex-RAF chaps but still no small beers in terms of running costs. Do the costs you mention include all of the infrastructure needed to support the typhoon as well then, i.e. down to a proportion of their home base costs, etc.?
Simpo Two said:
If only aircraft carriers had been invented.
But going back to the A10 - this was designed for ground attack and is armoured against random small arms fire I thought.
Yep, but the only A-10's available are reconditioned models, I doubt the US would sell or lease any. And if they did it would be pretty expensive. And take too long (for afg and Libya) and cost too much to train biggles to be effective in it.But going back to the A10 - this was designed for ground attack and is armoured against random small arms fire I thought.
Simpo Two said:
rhinochopig said:
So it's the range thing that kills off the use of a cheap CAS platform then I guess.
If only aircraft carriers had been invented.But going back to the A10 - this was designed for ground attack and is armoured against random small arms fire I thought.
The Russians have navalised Sukhoi 25s that would fit the bill as they were designed to fill the same role as the A-10 and can take off and land from a carrier. Very heavily armoured and survivable as well.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/A-10_Thunderbol... Pretty much covers the A-10 (maybe not safe for work)
Wiki said:
Please make spelling, grammar, or punctuation corrections, reorganize the content, or delete bad content and clichés so this template will cheer up.
Indeed, some retard has been running amok.Here's the nice sensible one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff