Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Aircraft Prices

This is a discussion on Aircraft Prices within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by exported_kiwi I think the Argies in 1980's had a decent turboprop airplane in the Pucara! As for ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old July 31st, 2011   #151
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Warren, MI
Posts: 3
Threads:
Light surveillance

Quote:
Originally Posted by exported_kiwi View Post
I think the Argies in 1980's had a decent turboprop airplane in the Pucara! As for the rest, F-35, no thanks! F-16, latest block, far more capable, more legs and more diversified and cheaper!
Though the aircraft that you mention are quite capable, they are not of the same type that I am asking about. What I am asking is if there is any current need for an inexpensive, light, manned surveillance aircraft these days -or is this all being done by UAVs? the Pucara, F-16, etc. are QUITE capable -but NOT light piston surveillance planes!
MIpilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2011   #152
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIpilot View Post
Though the aircraft that you mention are quite capable, they are not of the same type that I am asking about. What I am asking is if there is any current need for an inexpensive, light, manned surveillance aircraft these days -or is this all being done by UAVs? the Pucara, F-16, etc. are QUITE capable -but NOT light piston surveillance planes!
Throughout all the years of nearly losing pilots shot down, I guess this is the inexpensive way.
razgrizraven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2011   #153
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Twinblade's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 290
Threads:
The latest batch of Su-30Mki, completely made in India from "raw material stage" costs ₹3 billion (around $60million US).
Desi Sukhoi does supersonic ballet on debut | Sukhoi | Indian Air Force | The New Indian Express

The last batch ordered from Russia cost around $100 million US.
Twinblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2012   #154
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 91
Threads:
Estimating the Real Cost of modern fighters

Had a look on my harddrive, & found this from defense-aerospace.

It's a little out of date - July 2006 - but it is the best estimate of real prices of military aircraft prices that I've seen.

Sticker Shock: Estimating the Real Cost of Modern Fighter Aircraft
by defense-aerospace.com

Highlights:
- Average unit costs exceed $100 million
- Longer production runs do not always equate to lower unit costs
- International cooperation does not necessarily lead to savings
- One fighter is worth its weight in gold, three are worth their weight in caviar

download - filecloud.io


Also found this, also from 2006 - not sure what the original source is, but it's a professional estimate:
Aircraft Prices.doc
download - filecloud.io

PS. if any of this violates any policy, please notify & I will remove.
macman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 19th, 2012   #155
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1
Threads:
Quote:
JSF USAF version $28
JSF USMC version $32
JSF USN version $35-38
JSF Costs now about $160 Millions which is the double of the estimated price of $74 Millions.... Both are much higher than your price
elbarck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2013   #156
Banned Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 19
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by suleman View Post
Name ----------- -- Fiscal Year (Year USD) -------- Price (millions)
A-10 Thunderbolt II -------- FY82 --------------- ----- $12.1
A-4 Skyhawk FY77 $2.8
A-6E Intruder FY88 $55.5
AH-1 HueyCobra FY95 $11.275
AH-64A Apache FY94 $16.76
AH-64D Longbow appr. $15.2
B-1B Lancer average $178
B-2 Spirit FY93 $872.25
B-52 Stratofortress 1961 $5.4
BAe Hawk 1996 $9-15
Boeing 767 AWACS 1997 est. $400-500
C-141B Starlifter Modification program cost over $400 for a total of 270 aircraft
C-17 Globemaster FY98 $241.0
C-5B Galaxy FY87 $92.25
Dassault Mirage 2000 1997 appr. $35
Dassault Mirage 50 appr. $7.75
Dassault Rafale B 1996 $64.4
Dassault Rafale C 1996 $60.6
Dassault Rafale M 1996 $65
Dassault Super Etendard 1980 appr. $10.5
E-2C Hawkeye FY96 $55.27
E-3A Sentry FY83 $111.9
EA-6B Prowler FY89 $47.7
EF-111A Raven $21
Eurocopter Super Puma/Cougar 1996 military models $7.0-15.0
Eurocopter Tiger 1996 est. 13.5-14.0
Eurofighter 1997 est.$54.5
F/A-18 C/D Hornet FY96 $44.27
F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet 1996 $48.5
F-111 1973 $14.6
F-117A Nighthawk Program unit $111
Total program costs $6.56 billions
Unit flyaway $42.6 according to the Air Force


F-14D Tomcat FY91 $71.9
F-15 Eagle FY91 $42.875
F-16 Fighting Falcon FY96 $25.67
1996 Unit flyaway est. $71.2 for the planned buy of 438 aircraft .FY96 Total program costs est. $71 billions

F-5E/F Tiger FY83 $11.1
Harrier II Plus 1 997 (new build) $29.75-34.5
Harrier/AV-8A 1988 $6.7
Hercules AC-130U FY90 $53.0
Hercules C-130H FY93 $35.9
Hercules C-130J Fy94 $44
Hercules HC-130H FY90 $42.6
Hercules KC-130T FY93 $35.0
Hercules MC-130H FY90 $84.6
HH-60H/HH-60J Jayhawk FY94 $15.1
CH-46 Sea Knight 1987 $6.0
CH-47 Chinook new production $15.9-20.2
CH-53E Super Stallion FY94 $28.25
JSF USAF version $28
JSF USMC version $32
JSF USN version $35-38
KC-135 Stratotanker appr. $20.5
L-39 Albatros 2000 $1-4
L-159 ALCA 2000 est. $12
MH-53E Sea Dragon FY94 $28.25
MiG-23/MiG-27 Flogger 1996 est. $15
MiG-29 Fulcrum 1997 $15.5 (fully-equipped in lots between 25-100)
MiG-29 Fulcrum 1997 $24-31 (fully-equipped in lots of 10-25)
MiG-31 Foxhound 1997 est. $57-60
P-3 Orion FY87 $50.4
Panavia Tornado ECR 1997 $38
Panavia Tornado IDS/ADV 1997 $32-33
RAH-66 Comanche FY95 est. $13.0 (with research a. development est. at $34.4)
Saab JAS-39 Gripen $20-25.75
Sea Harrier 1988 $14
1991 $18
SEPECAT Jaguar 1997 $15.5-16.5
SH-60B Seahawk FY94 $30.81
SH-60F Ocean Hawk FY93 $22.86
Su-24 Fencer 1997 est. $24-25
Su-25 Frogfoot 1997 est. $15.0-15.5
Su-27 Flanker 1997 est. $30
Su-32FN 1997 appr. $36
UH-60L Black Hawk FY97 $8.26
V-22 Osprey est. $32.5
Yak-141 1997 $ 45-47
Yak-38 1996 est. $18.5


http://www.military.cz/accessories/prices/prices_en.htm

You can now see the latest with more information in details pertaining to all the above.

Airforce Technology
prkralex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013   #157
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
Threads:
Lifecycle Costs of F-15SG

Does anyone have an estimate on the lifecycle costs for the F-15SG? Like costs per flying hours?
Shihidosama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2013
rosstaylor2440
This message has been deleted by OPSSG. Reason: Spam away applied
Old March 21st, 2013   #158
Defense Enthusiast
Major
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 884
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shihidosama View Post
Does anyone have an estimate on the lifecycle costs for the F-15SG? Like costs per flying hours?
There was a article DT news that stated F-15 cost close to $50,000 an hour to fly.
F-18 Super hornets were close to $22,000 an hour.
I would assume the cost of a F-15SG would be around the $40,000 an hour mark.
OPSSG any idea?
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2013   #159
Super Moderator
General
OPSSG's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,299
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the road runner View Post
There was a article DT news...
I have not seen the article and a little behind the curve on that (if you have the link, please point me to it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by the road runner View Post
...that stated F-15 cost close to $50,000 an hour to fly. F-18 Super hornets were close to $22,000 an hour.
I am not sure about the basis of the above comparative numbers for O&M costs of fighter types cited but if you want to take these as indicative, it is not unreasonable to use with proper links and citation, BUT there are lots of like-for-like factors that are not considered in any comparative costs snap shot of different aircraft types (which would include different methods of cost counting by different organisations, like the USAF, USN, RAAF and so on).

For example, Singaporean Mudhens have electronic warfare capabilities (built into some of the F-15SG as internal systems) and because of that they may be more expensive from a O&M point of view. So even when compared with another USAF Mudhen, there might be O&M cost differences, just from the radar and electronic warfare systems alone. Further, Singaporean Mudhens use the F110-GE-129 engines, a different engine type from that used by Singaporean Vipers (F100-PW-220). Singapore made a decision that increased O&M cost, as part of a risk management strategy (to prevent a situation where a precautionary grounding due to a particular engine, would not affect all fighters). And this 2nd point I made is not usually factored in general O&M discussions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the road runner View Post
...I would assume the cost of a F-15SG would be around the $40,000 an hour mark.
OPSSG any idea?
I am pretty sure that the actual Republic of Singapore Air Force numbers for O&M would be treated as classified and therefore no comments or attempts to guess the numbers, from me.
________________
“Terrorism is the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.”
Christopher Hitchens

Last edited by OPSSG; March 21st, 2013 at 04:43 AM.
OPSSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2013   #160
Defense Enthusiast
Major
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 884
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OPSSG View Post
I have not seen the article and a little behind the curve on that (if you have the link, please point me to it).
I have been searching the "Defence Talk,News thread" but can not find it.
I recall the cost breakdown being
$52,000 for F-15 per hour.
$32,000 for JSF per hour
$22,000 for F-18 per hour.
$18,000 for F-16 per hour.

I found a link below

Defence of our Nation: The Troubled F-35 Lightning Program

With similar numbers for JSF and F-18 Super hornets

Cost per Flying Hour

5. US Naval Air Systems Command[6] has indicated a cost of US$30,700 or £18,700 per flying hour for the F-35. The cost per flying hour for Harrier and the F/A-18 equates to US$22,000 or £13,400 – a difference per hour of US$8,700 or £5,294.

I do understand its not wise to compare prices in general for Aircraft and flight hours.
Cheers.
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2013   #161
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 325
Threads:
In Norway a rough estimate that has been mentioned is around NOK 63,000 for one hour (F-16). With today's exchange rate that is around 10,1800 USD.

The Norwegian MoD expected the F-35 to be around 40% more expensive to operate per hour than the F-16 (i.e. 89,000 NOK, 15,250 USD), but that's a very rough estimate of course, and to some extent an apples-to-pears comparison (or apples to oranges?). Also these figures are a couple of years old, I don't know what they would be today.

The same document indicates that the cost of obtaining the Norwegian F-35 will be around 1089 million NOK per plane (2011; 186 million USD).

The cost for the plane with no weapons or logistics (i.e. plane "with necessary equipment" only) was estimated to 679 million NOK (116 million USD). Again, this is 2011 NOK and estimate.

Vedlegg 1 - stortinget.no
Vivendi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2013   #162
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 325
Threads:
Does anybody have cost estimates for the SU-30 planes being exported? What are their cost per hour compared to Western planes?

I know it's very difficult to get comparable numbers, however some air forces like the Indian and Malaysian do operate both SU-30 and Western planes, and they should be in a position to at least produce numbers that are based on the same assumptions (within their respective organizations).

Edit: In another forum I found the following claim:

"RTAF claim F-16 is twice as expensive to operate as Gripen, and Su-30 twice as expensive to operate as F-16. "

and with a link to the following document: http://www.rtaf.mi.th/news/n07/gripe...eplacement.pdf

Anybody who speaks Thai could comment on whether this document really indicates anything about operating costs (or costs per hour) for the 3 different fighters mentioned?
Vivendi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2013   #163
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,874
Threads:
Well, it wouldn't surprise me if the SU-30 is the most expensive out of the lot to operate, given it's the only one with two engines, and its huge weight compared to the other two could be an indicator that its fuel costs relative to the other two aircraft might be higher... but I'm just speculating. From what I recall some of the Flanker variants don't have the greatest reputation for engine serviceability, maybe someone who knows more about it could chime in. As I said, it's just speculation on my part, but it seems logical. Can't speak a word of Thai though, so can't help you there.
Bonza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2013   #164
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonza View Post
Well, it wouldn't surprise me if the SU-30 is the most expensive out of the lot to operate, given it's the only one with two engines, and its huge weight compared to the other two could be an indicator that its fuel costs relative to the other two aircraft might be higher... but I'm just speculating. From what I recall some of the Flanker variants don't have the greatest reputation for engine serviceability, maybe someone who knows more about it could chime in. As I said, it's just speculation on my part, but it seems logical. Can't speak a word of Thai though, so can't help you there.
The Malay AF pilots who have interacted with RAAF across a number of levels have made it pretty clear that the support and maint costs have been a nightmare, and that includes platform availability

I've interviewed ex Sukhoi maintainers and they had similar stories.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Days Ago   #165
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,119
Threads:
This is an explanation of US FMS costing differences. Whilst this is placed here, it equally applies to naval and ground platforms.
Quote:
Why Foreign Military Sales Are Always Worth Less Than The Published Number

Loren Thompson , CONTRIBUTOR

SEP 19, 2017 @ 01:30 PM

Arms sales to overseas partners are a major tool of U.S. foreign policy. They are also a growing source of revenues for U.S. defense contractors, who have faced flat domestic demand in recent years due to congressionally mandated caps on Pentagon spending. When arms sales are done right, they can bolster regional security, strengthen alliances, lighten the warfighting burden on U.S. forces, improve the trade balance and create jobs in the U.S.

To make sure they are done right, all foreign military sales are subject to strict standards set forth by the Arms Control Export Act of 1976. The Department of State has final say in approving proposed transactions, with the Department of Defense assuming a leading role in executing deliveries. Other cabinet departments and agencies may also participate, and Congress always is given an opportunity to block big arms deals.

However, there is one facet of this highly articulated process that often gets quite confused, and that is the value of the transactions. News reports about the value of pending arms sales are often greatly exaggerated, particularly compared with the amount of money that the companies manufacturing the arms are likely to ultimately receive. Here, for example, is a passage from a news story that appeared on the eve of President Trump's May visit to Saudi Arabia:
The official, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said the arms package could end up surpassing more than $300bn over a decade to help Saudi Arabia boost its defensive capabilities while still maintaining US ally Israel's qualitative military edge over its neighbors.
$300 billion would be nearly half of Saudi Arabia's annual gross national product, a level of weapons outlays unlikely in all but the most extreme circumstances. After the president completed his trip to the kingdom, many news accounts settled on the more "modest" estimate that Riyadh's new purchases of Lockheed Martin helicopters, Boeing maritime patrol planes, and other U.S. military items would be worth around $110 billion.

But where do such figures come from? Usually they come from congressional notification documents alerting Capitol Hill to proposed transactions. Congressional notification always occurs after a prospective purchasing country has formalized its request for specific military items, but before the U.S. government has responded with a proposed package of goods and services -- called a Letter of Offer and Acceptance.

And that's where what we might call the "arms sale inflation process" begins. Because negotiations with overseas buyers haven't been finalized when Capitol Hill is informed about an impending deal, the executive branch typically includes everything in its estimates that could possibly be covered by a deal. Not just weapons quantities but options for follow-on purchases, spare parts, initial training and maintenance, etc. It may also include a "just in case" financial buffer that further inflates the likely value.

If Congress doesn't like what it sees, a joint resolution can be passed to block the deal. But to avoid having to go back to the Hill later if subsequent discussions with the customer take an unexpected turn, congressional notifications tend to include everything but the kitchen sink, and the resulting price-tag is quite imposing. It is not uncommon for the publicly reported value of a transaction drawn from congressional notification documents to be a quarter or a third bigger than the price that is ultimately agreed to.

Now, that might not be so bad if the real price were eventually disclosed, but it generally isn't. The Department of Defense claims an exception to the Freedom of Information Act for foreign military sales data that might cause competitive harm to weapons makers, or might impair the government's ability to secure necessary information in the future, or simply might undermine some undefined interest of the government. So usually the inflated estimates in congressional notification documents are the only cost data to reach the public.

So imagine, if you will, that the negotiated price for an arms package is $3 billion rather than the $4 billion contained in congressional notification documents. That's what the U.S. companies building the weapons being sold will actually get, right? Wrong. Because much of the price negotiated for a sale actually consists of so-called "government furnished equipment" (like aircraft engines and munitions) or services the U.S. government itself provides, rather than money that counts as revenue for weapons makers.

Thus, even before the weapons makers start passing revenues through to their own suppliers, the value of a transaction may have shrunk to less than half the figure that readers are seeing in published reports. Granted, the original equipment manufacturer may reap additional revenues after weapons are delivered to the foreign customer for maintenance and other in-service support, but those arrangements vary markedly from transaction to transaction, and they often are not finalized at the time an arms sale is agreed to.

The problem with inflating publicly available pricing data the way the current arms sale process does is that it can inflame opposition in purchasing countries because the size of transactions is so exaggerated. In other words, deals become harder to do because the locals get "sticker shock." The truth of the matter is that foreign buyers like the Saudis are canny negotiators striving to get the best deals they can, and deals don't happen unless both sides are comfortable with the outcome.

Several companies engaged is selling weapons through the foreign military sales program contribute to my think tank. Some are consulting clients.
________________
The Rules - read them. Ignorance of them is not an excuse.
The Introduction thread for new members to tell the rest of us something about you.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:24 PM.