US Aicraft costs reach the highs.... where is the limit? - Page 2

SRB · 09-02-2006, 04:50 AM

Belive or not belive, it is question now!
Well we send our 6 mig-29, one cargo, 6 heli to Russia for repair total 30 mln dollars.
We have dozen of trainer planes(G-4 super galeb) and couple of strike bombers (Orao)
And unknow number of Mig-21 which aren'y flight.
So our air force will be 6 Mig-29(total operational)
In 1999 we had 16 Mig-29 many without radar, or fire control.
So we dont have money to have all 10-12(we lost 4-6 in war) so we decided to have 6 Mig-29 in exelent state.

Garry · 11-02-2006, 09:11 AM

I remember Snipe was furrious about Ospreys.... well there was at least some new technology there to justify the cost... here it is just only models refitted to rescue ops...

I am sure... if it goes like this US would face a threat sooner or later... why the hell these helos must cost that much? Because it is profitable!!!

The giant Mi-26 which is world largest helo would cost you only $35mln with western engines and avionics... a good old Mi-17/8 would cost just $10mln... and can carry 30 troops. The helps discussed in the article are LESS CAPABLE but cost times more!!! This is true in terms of both ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...rs10008738.php

From DefenceTalk.com

Military Aviation
Pentagon approves plan to buy new helicopters
By Reuters

URL of this article:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/index.php

Quote:

Nov 2, 2006 - 5:09:40 AM
WASHINGTON: Top Pentagon officials have approved U.S. Air Force plans to buy a new fleet of up to 141 combat search-and-rescue helicopters, defense analyst Loren Thompson and a defense official said on Wednesday.

A decision to go ahead with the next phase of the competition must still be finalized by Pentagon acquisition chief Ken Krieg, said the official, who asked not to be identified.

The Air Force is expected to announce a winner in the closely-watched competition -- which analysts value at up to $10 billion -- after the Nov. 7 congressional election, Thompson and the official said.

The Pentagon's Defense Acquisition Board, which oversees major acquisition programs, met on Tuesday to discuss plans to buy 141 new helicopters and five test aircraft to replace the Air Force's current fleet of Sikorsky HH-60G Pave Hawks.

Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin confirmed the meeting took place. In an e-mailed reply to a query from Reuters, she added: "At yesterday's meeting there was no decision made."

Lockheed Martin Corp. and AgustaWestland Inc., owned by Italy's Finmeccanica SpA, are offering the US101 helicopter chosen last year as the new U.S. presidential helicopter.

Boeing Co. is offering a version of its CH-47 Chinook helicopter that is widely used by the Army and special forces, while Sikorsky, part of United Technologies Corp. (UTX.N: Quote, Profile, Research), is teamed with Boeing to offer its VH-92 helicopter.

Air Force officials had been upbeat about the program's prospects, citing what they call an urgent need to replace the aging current fleet.

Air Force spokesman Don Manuszewski said the service had not yet received word of any decision from the Pentagon meeting. He said a contract announcement was expected shortly after a formal Pentagon green light.

The Air Force will use the helicopters to rescue wounded soldiers from the battlefield, deliver humanitarian aid and evacuate people caught in disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

Some analysts say the Lockheed-AgustaWestland is likely to win, citing the advantage its three engines offer for combat use and its greater space than Sikorsky's VH-92.

highsea · 11-02-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

...This is true in terms of both ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE

Garry, we have seen the problems with parts and spares, short life cycles, etc. wrt Russian aircraft- Why would the US buy a Russian helo, when there is no service infrastructure among NATO forces or ABCA allies? To reengineer a Russian helo to accept western engines and avionics would be very expensive up front, and to put the maintenance infrastructure in place throughout the areas of operation would be extemely expensive. Neither acquisition nor maintenance would be actually cheaper in the long run.

This is why Australia didn't go with Russian helos either.

(for the US, there is also the important consideration of paying that money to US workers, who will spend it in the US economy, pay US taxes, etc.)

Wooglin · 11-02-2006, 12:58 PM

WRT R&D costs, considering how much technology that was developed for the military finds it's way into commercial applications, doesn't that help offset R&D costs? It seems the ROI is often more then the intended product.

I'd be curious to see just how much military tech has brought in on commercial markets.

Jimmy · 11-02-2006, 22:52 PM

The US defense budget is actually pretty small as a percentage of GDP. Sure in absolute dollars its mind-boggling, but when you're taking a piece of a $12 trillion pie, that big piece doesnt seem quite so big anymore.

Garry · 11-03-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

Garry, we have seen the problems with parts and spares, short life cycles, etc. wrt Russian aircraft- Why would the US buy a Russian helo, when there is no service infrastructure among NATO forces or ABCA allies? To reengineer a Russian helo to accept western engines and avionics would be very expensive up front, and to put the maintenance infrastructure in place throughout the areas of operation would be extemely expensive. Neither acquisition nor maintenance would be actually cheaper in the long run.

This is why Australia didn't go with Russian helos either.

(for the US, there is also the important consideration of paying that money to US workers, who will spend it in the US economy, pay US taxes, etc.)

Hi Highsea, the issue is that there should be something done to increase competition and force companies to work costs down. The case with somebody doing cheaper only illustrates that IT COULD BE DONE. I don't expect US nor Australia to use Russian helos!

B.Smitty · 11-03-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

Hi Highsea, the issue is that there should be something done to increase competition and force companies to work costs down. The case with somebody doing cheaper only illustrates that IT COULD BE DONE. I don't expect US nor Australia to use Russian helos!

I think one of Highsea's points was that modifying Russian equipment to Western standards would make them as expensive as Western systems. So they wouldn't be cheaper.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
LCA beats F-16	Mr_Vastu	Military Aviation	137	08-27-2008 14:00 PM
Rove on the Hotseat?	Broken	Political Discussions	370	03-23-2007 08:57 AM
Pollution costs China	gunnut	Political Discussions	0	02-19-2007 18:25 PM

09-02-2006, 04:50 AM	#16 (permalink)
SRB Contributor Join Date: 05-19-06 Location: Belgrade Posts: 414 Country:	Belive or not belive, it is question now! Well we send our 6 mig-29, one cargo, 6 heli to Russia for repair total 30 mln dollars. We have dozen of trainer planes(G-4 super galeb) and couple of strike bombers (Orao) And unknow number of Mig-21 which aren'y flight. So our air force will be 6 Mig-29(total operational) In 1999 we had 16 Mig-29 many without radar, or fire control. So we dont have money to have all 10-12(we lost 4-6 in war) so we decided to have 6 Mig-29 in exelent state.

11-02-2006, 12:58 PM	#19 (permalink)
Wooglin Contributor Join Date: 12-08-05 Location: USA Posts: 583 Country:	WRT R&D costs, considering how much technology that was developed for the military finds it's way into commercial applications, doesn't that help offset R&D costs? It seems the ROI is often more then the intended product. I'd be curious to see just how much military tech has brought in on commercial markets.

11-02-2006, 22:52 PM	#20 (permalink)
Jimmy *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-16-05 Posts: 1,032 Country:	The US defense budget is actually pretty small as a percentage of GDP. Sure in absolute dollars its mind-boggling, but when you're taking a piece of a $12 trillion pie, that big piece doesnt seem quite so big anymore.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)