Defenc(s)e analysis frommy corner ofthe Internet.
Excuse me, how did a Tiger helicopter accumulate so many flying hours already!?
Page65,Re Tigre, actual hours 2,413hours or 40%of budgeted hours.Interesting cost per flying hour of MRH90.The report further states hours flown are only 28% of budget.Page 50As can be seen, over the past fifteen years the number of civilian senior executives hasincreased by 69% and military star‐rank officers by 70%. At the same time, the civilianworkforce grew by only 27% and the military workforce by only 11%. Over a similar timeframe, the numbers of civilian and military senior officers have grown by 94% and 42%respectively. Although the budget papers show a reduction in the number of civilian seniorofficers in Defence and DMO in 2012‐13, such predictions have been made in the past andnot occurred.At every senior level in the civilian and military workforce the number of managers andexecutives has increased at a rate well in excess of the growth in the size of the overallworkforce. However, as might be expected, the fastest rate of increase has occurred at thelevel of Deputy Secretary and 3‐star military officer (Table 2.5.12) where much of the growthis very recent, including as a result of the 2007 Defence Management Review.P54Third, the actual remuneration of civilian personnel has increased much more quickly thanfor the military workforce, in part, through the ‘level enrichment’ shown in Table 2.5.13.(Civilian senior officers make up 28% of the civilian workforce while military senior officersonly account for less than 3%.
Hold on. These numbers suggest that a Super Hornet is nearly twice as expensive as a Hornet. Does that make sense? The Super Hornet is supposed to have an AESA radar with no moving parts, and lower maintenance needs because fault codes are displayed in the wheel well and the cockpit. Its fuel consumption should be only about 30% higher. Has a mistake been made somewhere along the line?Speaking of which, the Tiger appears to cost roughly the same as a Hornet. That's a terrible mis-investment if that's the case. Close Air Support can be provided by low-maintainence, simple, subsonic fixed wing aircraft at a fraction of the cost of a fourth-generation supersonic tactical fighter like the Hornet. Someone has blundered if the slow-moving, short ranged and maintainence-intensive Tiger costs that much.The F-111 reportedly cost 10%-40% more to operate per hour than the Hornet. Is the Super Hornet really this much more expensive than the 111? It's undeniably slower and needs far more (expensive) tanker support. What extra capability does the Super Hornet provide to justify this? In particular, what capability does it provide that couldn't have been provided by fitting the F-111 with modern engines, radar and weapons?Lastly, please note that the F-35 costs at least twice as much as a Super Hornet, and possibly even more. Cost to buy is usually a good indicator of cost to fly. If the F-35 is twice as expensive as a Super Hornet and the Super hornet, in turn, is twice as expensive to operate as a Hornet, that suggests that the cost of operating our tactical fighter fleet will at least triple and possible quintuple as 100 F-35s are introduced (if it ever is introduced, that is)Food for thought.
Post a Comment