This is a discussion on Afghan National Army Air Corps within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; The ANAAC (Afghan National Army Air Corps) is currently building out a 126 aircraft steady state air force. The specifics ...
the ANAAC plans to purchase twenty eight fixed-wing single-engine turboprop light attack aircraft with precision weapons capability:
-one squadron of 14 aircraft in the Kabul Air Wing
-one squadron of 14 aircraft in the Kandahar Air Wing
Does anyone have any insights into what light attack aircraft the ANAAC is considering? What aircraft the ANAAC should consider?
One question I have is why is the ANAAC going with turboprop, beside the upfront one time acquisition cost?
What is the annual operations cost (measured in miles flown) of a turboprop light attack aircraft compared with a light attack supersonic aircraft such as the F/A 50? This is excluding the one time aircraft purchase cost.
Thanks for everyone's insightful comments in advance. :-)
If the ANAAC (Afghan National Army Air Corps) decided to implement their current plan to purchase twenty eight fixed-wing single-engine turboprop light attack aircraft with precision weapons capability, what is the best quality multi function aircraft they could purchase? It seems like there are only three choices available.
Is it the EMB-314 Super Tucano / AT-29 the best choice? The IqAF (Iraqi Air Force) purchased 36 AT-6B instead of purchasing the EMB-314 Super Tucano / AT-29. What are the advantages of purchasing each aircraft (or other comparable aircraft)? For example does a weaponized version of the KAI KT-1C Ungbi (versus the trainer model) that compares favorably with the EMB-314 Super Tucano / AT-29, and the AT-6B?
It looks like the listed price of the EMB-314 Super Tucano / AT-29 two seater is about $10 million per unit. Would the lifecycle cost of operating this plane be about $150 million over 20 years (assuming heavy use)? ($40 million for maintenance, $50 million for fuel, $40 million for munitions as a rough ball park.) What is the marginal fuel/maintenance cost per mile flown when fully loaded? How does it compare to the competition?
It appears as if the ANAAC is leaning towards selecting the AT-6B versus the EMB-314 Super Tucano/AT-29. The ANAAC doesn't seem enamored with the KT-1C Ungbi.
How does the maintenance/operations cost of the EMB-314 Super Tucano / AT-29 compare with a light attack jet such as the F/A 50 (excluding the one time procurement cost of the aircraft)? Cost per mile flown fully loaded?
I think that the US/ISAF/international community should consider buying the ANAAC one squadron of light attack supersonic jets with multifunction capability (including light air to air combat capability.) If the US/ISAF/international community went in this direction, what would the best aircraft for the ANAAC? The important criteria for the ANAAC are:
1) low long term operations costs (in maintenance, upgrades, fuel, and munitions) {Since the long term funding for the ANAAC is uncertain}
2) reliability . . . {Since the ANAAC has limited skilled mechanics/engineers, and uncertain long term ability to buy spare parts}
3) light multifunction capability including light air to air combat capability (tactical air support, strategic air strikes, and air superiority east of the Durand line is the capability the Afghans want)
Last edited by anan; February 25th, 2009 at 02:06 PM.
What light attack supersonic aircraft with slight multifunction capability is the cheapest to operate (maintain, upgrade, fuel economy, munitions costs)?
How do the Chinese aircraft stack up versus the Korean F/A 50, versus the Indian Tejas, Soviet, and other comparable aircraft of comparable capabilities?
Would it be fair to say that all these aircraft are significantly cheaper to operate than any Gen 4.5 aircraft (such as F16s or Grippens)?
There is a story on the New York Times on how U.S. trains Afghan pilots to fly Mi-17 helicopters (link included).
It looks like US is capable of providing all the necessary training even for the Russian equipment and will cost American taxpayers $5 billion into 2016. Americans have in the past been taught to fly MI-17s, mostly for military exercises to teach them how to counter enemy aircraft. The Afghan program is modeled after an earlier American effort to build up the Iraqi Air Force, which also includes some MI-17s.
What light attack supersonic aircraft with slight multifunction capability is the cheapest to operate (maintain, upgrade, fuel economy, munitions costs)?
Your question is too broad.
You may lack understanding of the various aircraft and their respective development stage. The aircraft types you listed are so different and at various stages of development. Further, to have an accurate discussion on operating costs, it is necessary to talk about specific aircraft engine models used in the relevant fighter. I would not attempt to compare them in the manner you have suggested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anan
How do the Chinese aircraft stack up versus the Korean F/A 50, versus the Indian Tejas, Soviet, and other comparable aircraft of comparable capabilities?
I make no attempt to compare Russian aircraft as they are not my area of interest.
Further, Pakistan is going to be the only user of JF-17 A2A fighter (China-Pakistan co-development with a Chernyshev RD-93 engine, a variant of the Mikoyan MiG-29's Klimov/Isotov RD-33a) at the moment and India's HAL Tejas (with the potentially interim solution - the F404-GE-IN20 engine) is not fully developed at this stage. After the numerous delays with the indigenous GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri engine, there may be plans to issue a request for proposal for a more powerful engine. How can their operating costs be compared? At this stage of their development, I am not excited about both aircraft types, as they are not ready to be called multi-role (they only have the potential to be multi-role) and we are still waiting for a final decision on the engine to be used on the Tejas.*
Save for Pakstan, there are no other immediate potential export sales for China's J-10 (the alleged F-16 killer). I am still waiting for China to introduce their own engine on the J-10. I understand China's current J-10 squadrons are using the Salyut AL-31FN (a derivative of the Sukhoi Su-27's Saturn/Lyulka AL-31F - please correct me if I am wrong). China can really focus on export sales for the J-10 after they are happy with their own fighter engine development. The long-term Chinese plan is for the LMAC WS-10A Taihang engine to become the basis for several successively more powerful designs. The WS-10A will first be introduced into the J-11 multirole fighter - the Chinese licence-assembled version of the Su-27 and the J-11B, which is the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation's copy of the Su-27. IMHO, too early to try to compare operating costs but you may want to check with tphuang.
The T-50 is a collaboration between the Koreans and Lockheed Martin (the makers of the F-16). Of the three aircraft mentioned, the T-50 (or the A-50, the strike variant) is ready for export sale (using a variant of the F404-GE engine and is a mature design). It is not intended to compete with new F-16s (as it will not have AESA radar) and is intended to cost less than a late model F-16. As such, I expect it to cost slightly less or the same to maintain and operate as a F-16. IIRC the makers of the Saab JAS 39 Gripen claims it cost less than the F-16 to operate.
--------------------------------- *Footnote: In 1989, the F404-GE-100D engine shoved into the A-4SU, as part of a service life extension program by the RSAF. Don't get me wrong, the F404 is a great engine but I'll be more impressed if the engine used were as powerful as:
(i) the F414-GE which generates up to 22,000 lbf of thrust (and used in the Super Hornet), or
(ii) the F100-PW-229 which generates up to 29,160 lbf of thrust (and used in certain block 52 F-16s and some F-15Es), or
(iii) the F110-GE which can generate even more thrust (used in the majority of USAF F-16s, some F-15Ks and F-15SGs), see details of the F110-GE-132 developments (used in the block 60 F-16s).
Last edited by OPSSG; March 13th, 2009 at 09:43 AM.
Reason: Included Footnote
Would it be fair to say that all these aircraft are significantly cheaper to operate than any Gen 4.5 aircraft (such as F16s or Grippens)?
Initial acquisition costs for western aircraft is significantly more and their upgrade options are also more expensive. My guess is that the initial costs for aircraft with Russian or China designed engines will cost less than aircraft with Western engines.
I have no access to actual figures operating and maintenance figures and it is often assumed that Western aircraft will cost less to operate as their airframe will last longer (eg. Malaysia will decide whether to retire their MiG-29 fleet in 2010 but currently do not intend to retire their F-18Ds) and have lower long term operating costs.
OPSSG, your point on aircraft engines are well taken. Thanks for your links as well. My question, however, deals with non acquisition life cycle costs.
I know that I am oversimplifying the question to the point that it is very difficult to answer comprehensively.
What is the modern cheapest supersonic light attack aircraft configuration with slight multifunction capability when measured in terms:
1) acquisition costs
2) fuel economy
3) other operations maintenance costs
4) cost of future upgrades
Should the international community buy the ANAAC one small squadron of light attack supersonic jets; or only buy the ANAAC light attack turboprop aircraft?
How much more expensive are light attack supersonic aircraft than light attack turboprop aircraft when measured in terms of:
1) Acquisition costs (I think $35 million versus $11 million)
2) Fuel economy (cost of flying fully loaded per mile including per mile maintenance costs) {Is it a factor of two times more expensive?}
3) Cost of other maintenance {Is it a factor of 1.5 times as expensive}
I am trying to compare the life cycle costs of the two aircraft. Since the ANAAC has a small annual budget, it will have difficulty affording spares and maintenance personnel.
Of course with a Jet Powered aircraft there are benifits such as
1)less aircraft needed (to cover the same area)
2)better capability
Getting a Recommended retail price on an aircraft will be very difficult.
As you are looking for the comparison of jet powered Vs turbo prop,
Its a safe bet to say that the costs of a light attack jet powered aircraft would be more expensive to operate than a turbo prop.As to the Fractions involved in savings,i have no idea
These are the figures i have for th ANAAC
The Afghan National Army Air Corps.
Transport
An-12.........................(4 stored)
An-26.........................2
An-32.........................7 Active and 4 ordered
G222...........................18 ordered
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 10,631
Threads:
I'm sure that many L-39 will hit the second-hand market soon. Russian L-39 are being replaced with the Yak-130 over the next decade. East-European L-39 are also slowly being retired. I'm sure some surplus stocks are still left in Ukraine. Get them cheap, second hand, refurbish and maybe minor modernization, and you have a decent trainer/light attack at bargain bin prices.
Feanor, some think that the ANAAC should not bother with trainers and just train their pilots abroad (America, Europe, India, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, Russia, and other allies.) I tend to agree with that.
I think the ANAAC should restrict itself to purchasing light attack turboprop aircraft; ideally the Korean KAI KT-1C Ungbi if South Korean tax payers can be persuaded to foot much of the acquisition costs. If not the Tucano AT 29. The third choice would be the AT 6B.
Maybe the international community could be persuaded to buy one small squadron of light attack supersonic aircraft for Afghanistan. {Ideally the Chinese could be persuaded to foot much of the bill for the ANAAC to get Chinese light attack supersonic jets. If not, then perhaps the cheapest option would be the F/A 50 (if Korea agrees to chip in some of the cost for them.) Would anything be cheaper on a life cycle basis than the F/A 50 or a Chinese light attack jet?}
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 10,631
Threads:
I think that the L-39 is a decent option because it's very very cheap, can be used as a light-attack, and if in the future the ANAAC decides to go for a full jet-fighter, they can still be used as a trainer for it. The F/A-50 is new, and as such more expensive, by a notable margin. Why do you think anyone else (other then Afghanistan) would be willing to pay for equipping the ANAAC? I mean I guess the USA or other NATO allies, in abstract.... but China or Korea? Makes very little sense to me.
Given the world financial situation, the bad situation in Afghanistan, and the nature of the threat (insurgents), I would think that ideally you want a cheap, simple to operate, aircraft with wide availability of spares. The L-39 fits the bill perfectly. Almost everything else would be most likely more expensive, in many cases more complex.
The Afghans only get $800 million a year in tax revenue. About $400 million a year is paid by Chinese companies who manage a copper mine in Aynak, Afghanistan.
Almost the entire ANAAC and ANA (Afghan National Army) is paid for by foreigners. An international fund is being assembled to pay for the ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces) and afghan reconstruction.
For example, India has given or pledged $2.1 billion in grants and will likely provide more in the future. Other large contributors are China, Iran, Russia, and NATO. Of course the two largest providers of aid to Afghanistan are the US and Japan. The Czechs have provided 12 Mi35 attack helicopters free of charge to the ANAAC. Almost all the other equipment of the ANA has similarly been provided free of charge or heavily subsidized. South Korea has already given several hundred million in grants and sent troops to Afghanistan. South Korea might be willing to put up several hundred million in additional grants if it goes to buying South Korean fighters.
Currently, Afghanistan's largest trading partner, investor, business collaborator and reconstruction facilitator is China. The Taliban and AQ linked networks pose a great risk to China, including the possibility of terrorist attacks against Chinese population centers. China is under pressure to give the Afghans billions of dollars in additional grants. Would China prefer economic grants, or might they foot the bill for a small squadron of ANAAC Chinese built fighters? This would also facilitate a long term friendly alliance with the Afghan government; as well as a close relationship with NATO, Russia, India, Japan and Iran . . . all of which are very close to the Afghan government and all of which excluding Iran and deeply involved in building up and paying for the ANSF. China might like to diversify from their Pakistan alliance.
So far the training and equipping of the ANAAC has been lead by the US, UK and India. Bringing China and/or South Korea into the mix would significantly benefit the Afghans.
I don't think the Russians can foot the bill for ANAAC fixed wing aircraft until oil prices recover. That leaves China, South Korea and the US. {Since no other country builds the type of fighters the Afghans will need that could potentially pay for them.}
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 10,631
Threads:
Interesting. I did not know that.
Russia could however hand over some of the retiring L-39s... So could a number of other countries for that matter. Possibly even more advanced fighters then that. Russia did hand over 10 Fulcrums to Lebanon recently.
At this stage of their development, I am not excited about both aircraft types, as they are not ready to be called multi-role (they only have the potential to be multi-role) and we are still waiting for a final decision on the engine to be used on the Tejas.*
So could a number of other countries for that matter. Possibly even more advanced fighters then that. Russia did hand over 10 Fulcrums to Lebanon recently.
