Forsvaret frykter de vil ha for få piloter til F-35

[bbolsoy]

Pakistan defense forum har det meste av snadder du kan tenke deg.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/cost-of-buying-operating-fighters.84507/

 

Hvor, eksakt? Jeg finner ikke noe nevnt her om pakistanske operasjonskostnader, eller noe som er sammenlignbart jmf. Mig-29.

Uansett er det slik at F-35 har fullstendig dominert på øvelser den siste tiden, bla. mot F-15:
https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/27/f-15e-strike-eagles-unable-to-shoot-down-the-f-35s-in-8-dogfights-during-simulated-deployment/

 

Når USAF nå ser ut til å ønske leveranse av nye F-15X, en avansert utgave, har selvsagt ikke reaksjonene latt vente på seg. Ikke minst fra tidligere jagerpiloter:

The F-15X is an updated version of the F-15E, and six active duty pilots I have interviewed who have flown both that jet and the F-35 state the former could never survive in a modern day, high-threat environment, and that it would be soundly defeated by an F-35 in almost any type of air-to-air engagement. That strongly suggests buying the F-15X in lieu of the F-35 would be a very poor choice.

 

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-air-force-wants-buy-more-f-15x-jets-and-its-huge-mistake

 

As a former F-15 pilot, I love the aircraft. It was my first and the only front-line fighter I flew throughout my 40-year career and 2500 plus F-15 flying hours. It pains me greatly to write this article, but decision makers must accept what I have – the F-15’s air superiority days have come and gone! The 5th generation era has arrived, and the global near-peer threat is evolving to meet that capability.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-35-rules-why-air-force-needs-move-f-15-fantasy-49002?page=0%2C1

 

Fra en tidligere rapport:

 

 

https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/operational-assessment-the-f-35a-argues-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent

Endret 6. april 2019 av Countryman

[DirekteDemokrati]

Hvor, eksakt? Jeg finner ikke noe nevnt her om pakistanske operasjonskostnader, eller noe som er sammenlignbart jmf. Mig-29.

Var da ikke så mye i den posten jeg linket...

 

COST OF FLYING;

 

F-16 aircraft cost the Air Force Korean, or Egyptian 720 000 per year by dividing the number of flying hours to 200 h becomes a cost of $ 3600 per flight hour is believed that the latest model F-16Block52 + flight hour has Talakafp 4500-5000 dollars.

 

Mirage 2000 will realize this to some $ 2700 for an hour flight but it is believed that the figure rose for the models of Mirage-2000-5MK2 / 9 and appreciated to $ 5000.

 

Hour flight Rafale estimated value of $ 14,000 is French and the Brazilians and their clients they are working to reduce the cost per flight hour to no more than 15% of the cost per flight hour for the Mirage 2000.

 

F-15 flight-hour cost her $ 17000.

The cost of thousands of 22-hour flight with 19 000

 

Aliorvitr said in marketing them to flight hour with $ 15000, but the data which comes from Austria and Germany show that it ranges between $ 33000 and 73 000 euros, a significant figures illustrate the great escape with the Alliance of manufactured especially with the global financial crisis, which does not allow Bastzaf resources the Air Force even in the countries Europe, which entered the state, including income equivalent to the Arab countries combined.

 

 

 

The operating costs for the Eurofighter are significantly higher than expected . The operating costs for the Eurofighter are significantly higher than expected. With the price is 73 992 per flight hour , almost twice as high as originally planned With the price is 73 992 per flight hour, almost twice as high as originally planned 

 

Gripen NG model will not exceed $ 3000, making it the cheaper the cost of aircraft so far.

 

MiG-29 flying hour is estimated to have $ 5500

 

Sukhois 27/30 cost per flight hour with $ 7000, but believed that he had up to 14000 dollars for the latest Trzac of Sukhois 30-35

 

Chinese aircraft to extend data on the cost per flight hour does not publish on the Internet, but aircraft and single engine F-C-1 and Jian-10 is estimated it will be in levels of thousands of 16 for it and a single-engine general aircraft bombed the Chinese old short thousands of MIC-1 is equal to 4000 flight hours

[bbolsoy]

Var da ikke så mye i den posten jeg linket...

 

COST OF FLYING;

Problemet er at sifrene ikke er sammenlignbare. Det er ikke opplyst noe om premissene eller hvilke kostnadsfaktorer som ligger til grunn. Er det f.eks. kun direkte operasjonskostnader som fuel, lett vedlikehold på skvadron og personellkostnad? Eller tar man med hele spekteret med levetidskostnader dividert på antall flytimer. Som regel er det ulike mellomting. Ulike land og operatører beregner på ulike måter, alt etter hva som er hensikten.

 

Dermed får man tall som spriker i alle retninger. USAF opererer med alt fra 7000 til 25000 USD pr time for F-16. Jeg har sett tall fra 2500 til 26000 USD (sveitsiske myndigheter) for svenske Gripen.

[DirekteDemokrati]

Problemet er at sifrene ikke er sammenlignbare. Det er ikke opplyst noe om premissene eller hvilke kostnadsfaktorer som ligger til grunn. Er det f.eks. kun direkte operasjonskostnader som fuel, lett vedlikehold på skvadron og personellkostnad? Eller tar man med hele spekteret med levetidskostnader dividert på antall flytimer. Som regel er det ulike mellomting. Ulike land og operatører beregner på ulike måter, alt etter hva som er hensikten.

 

Dermed får man tall som spriker i alle retninger. USAF opererer med alt fra 7000 til 25000 USD pr time for F-16. Jeg har sett tall fra 2500 til 26000 USD (sveitsiske myndigheter) for svenske Gripen.

Alt står der jo... Hjelpes... Ja forskjellige land gjør det på forskjellige måter. Men her er det 1 land med mange fly typer. De bruker samme metode på og regne ut kostnaden av forskjellige flytyper. Så prisforskjellen er lett og se.

 

Alt er nok litt dyrere i Norge ja grunnet kostnad av arbeidkraft. Men innenfor denne nisjen så er vel kanskje arbeidskraft en liten kostnad, selv i Norge. Da disse flyene brenner bort like mye drivstoff som en årslønn i løpet av kort tid.

 

Sammenligner ikke Norge med Pakistan her, sammenligner Pakistan med Pakistan.

 

Recurring flyaway cost: Usually reported as the "unit recurring flyaway" (URF) cost, this covers only the airframe, engines, avionics, and other such equipment that come "standard" with every airplane (and thus are "recurring"). The URF is one of the two fundamental cost elements of the basic FAC. Until the F-35 program began using it, the URF was rarely ever reported in the general press. The F-35 program uses it to capture those costs of the basic airplane that are common to all of the partners. The partners are individually responsible for those "nonrecurring" elements they may desire to better "tailor" the airplane to their specific requirements. The F-35's URF is often mis-reported as the airplane's FAC, but this understates the true FAC.

 

Nonrecurring flyaway cost: Almost never separately reported, the nonrecurring costs include basic "startup" costs which are apportioned over the whole fleet of aircraft planned to be built for the purchaser(s), as well as allowances for user-required changes. The nonrecurring cost is typically a fraction of the recurring cost.

 

Flyaway cost: The basic flyaway cost (FAC) is the sum of the recurring and nonrecurring costs and is always reported as a "unit flyaway cost" (usually abbreviated "FAC" or, rarely, "UFAC"). It is the most commonly reported cost and is normally what most people think of when they think about what an airplane "costs." However, just to keep things from being simple, there is something called "total flyaway cost".

 

Total flyaway cost: This is always reported as a "unit" cost, and is often also referred to as the "weapon system cost" or simply as the "flyaway cost" — however, it comprises not only the "basic" flyaway cost, but also the delivery costs and the peculiar support equipment, technical data packages, training equipment, and a variety of contractor services required to provide initial support for the airplanes; all of this is usually amortized over the size of the customer's purchase. Unfortunately, with the total flyaway cost often being called "flyaway cost" and the term "weapon system cost" being used generically (even sometimes for the total lifecycle cost), it can often require an expert to figure out which is which. For the purposes of Wikipedia, editors should treat the "total" FAC and "basic" FAC as roughly the same "in round numbers." For follow-on purchases of a given aircraft by the same customer, this difference is often quite small.

 

Procurement cost: This can be reported as either a "program cost" or a "unit procurement (or program) cost"; the unit procurement cost (UPC) adds the cost of initial spares — amortized over the quantity being purchased — to the flyaway cost. This is the other most commonly reported type of cost, and is usually derived from the reported procurement program cost divided by the quantity of aircraft being bought. While this is not a fully accurate estimation method, it is usually just about all one has to go with. (It should be noted also that there is no such thing as a "standard initial spares" package for costing purposes.)

 

Program acquisition cost: Rarely ever seen — and normally only in the US — the PAC adds the costs of research and development, testing and evaluation, and related military construction (e.g., new hangars, test facilities, etc.) to the procurement cost. It can be found in the US DoD's "Selected Acquisition Reports". Detractors of a program often use this to "estimate" an exceptionally high unit cost for an airplane; while it is a "legitimate" form of cost, it is often used as a political tool by comparing it to the FAC or UPC — which are very different types of costs — thereby implying that it is the "real" cost (generally perceived to be the FAC or UPC) of the airplane as opposed to the government's "official" — and by implication, deceptive — cost (the actual FAC or UPC).

 

Life-cycle cost: The (total) life-cycle cost (LCC) takes the program acquisition cost and adds to it all of the projected lifetime logistic and operational costs: munitions and missiles, AVPOL (fuel, oil, and lubricants), spares (other than initial spares), replenishment, depot maintenance, system support and modifications, as well as the costs of hiring, training, supporting, and paying the personnel associated with the operating unit(s). In recent years, the term "life-cycle costs" has increasingly been used to refer to just the logistic and operational costs, while the term "total life-cycle costs" includes the PAC. While certain things may indeed be done to reduce LCC, any LCC projection should be taken with more than a few grains of salt; I've yet to see a verified and validated methodology for producing a realistic valuation. 

Endret 31. mars 2019 av DirekteDemokrati

[bbolsoy]

Alt står der jo... Hjelpes... Ja forskjellige land gjør det på forskjellige måter. Men her er det 1 land med mange fly typer. De bruker samme metode på og regne ut kostnaden av forskjellige flytyper. Så prisforskjellen er lett og se.

Igjen, hvor er tallene du mener er lette å se? Forumet du siterer har, så vidt jeg ser, ingen sammenligning av ulike Pakistanske flymaskiner, langt mindre som stammer fra samme kilde basert på samme premisser.

[DirekteDemokrati]

Igjen, hvor er tallene du mener er lette å se? Forumet du siterer har, så vidt jeg ser, ingen sammenligning av ulike Pakistanske flymaskiner, langt mindre som stammer fra samme kilde basert på samme premisser.

Er tilogmed i den posten jeg linket... Samt jeg har copy pastet noe. Men nei, står ingen tall der.. /ironi..

 

Men betyr ikke så mye for meg at jeg må fore noen med teskje for og lese det. Så jeg lar vær. Så vi sier da at Russisk koster en 1million per time og USA 1 dollar per time. Selv om alle tall sier noe motsatt. Men vi må jo opprettholde anti russer propaganda.

 

Edit: Der inne finner du php filer til de fleste forsvars kostnader og budsjett. Er litt rotete men. Samt mye fra Janes research, den viser også at man kan nesten ha en 6-8 JAS gripen for samme pris som 1 F-35

Endret 1. april 2019 av DirekteDemokrati

[bbolsoy]

Samt mye fra Janes research, den viser også at man kan nesten ha en 6-8 JAS gripen for samme pris som 1 F-35

 

Gripen E eller C?

Er tilogmed i den posten jeg linket... Samt jeg har copy pastet noe. Men nei, står ingen tall der.. /ironi..

 

Det er mange tall der, men ingen som har noe med hverandre å gjøre.

Sammenligner ikke Norge med Pakistan her, sammenligner Pakistan med Pakistan

 

Rent bortsett fra at Pakistan ikke opererer noen russiske kampfly.

Minner om hva du skrev:

Skulle hatt russiske jagerfly om jeg legger politikk til side, og bare ser på pris, hva man får for pengene.

Er klar over at gamle russere må overhales dobbelt så ofte.. [...] Bare se på timesprisen Pakistan kjører med. Tar med seg vedlikehold. Alt av kostnader. Selv da er amerikanerene veldig mye dyrere.

 

Du har altså enda til gode å underbygge dette.

Endret 6. april 2019 av Countryman