By: Ozair
- 10th March 2016 at 10:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ozair.....you need to read that report again. They have no consideration in that report anywhere for differences in operating costs between fighter types. It's an obviously flawed assumption. Show me anywhere in the report where they reflect operating costs or allow for variation in them. It's held constant. Stupid assumption. I had to read it three times because it invalidates the report by skipping one of the most significant program cost components.
Again, I will quote
Despite having a sub-fleet of lower cost aircraft, the loss of economies of scale combined with the cost of duplication may result in a mixed fleet that is more expensive than its single fleet counterpart as was shown in a recent estimate of sustainment costs of future Australian fighter fleets (Ref. R).
No they do not specifically identify the per hour cost difference between operating the two aircraft in a mixed fleet, although the reference document does go into it, but they don't need to. The per hour cost is not significantly different enough between two fighter aircraft compared to the fixed costs of operating two types.
This is evident by the assessment that doubling flight hours only results in a 50% increase in sustainment costs.
You cannot simply state that fighter availability is a function of investment in maintenance. The F-14 is an excellent example of that. They navy did not under invest. It was a difficult aircraft to maintain.
I stand by the statement. Plenty of difficult and troublesome aircraft meet their availability rates because the military in question provides sufficient resources to make that happen.
Perfect example is the B-1B which is known as a difficult aircraft to maintain yet in a conflict, with the money provided and motivated workforce, they can do amazing things.
“We were able to achieve these great stats through pure hard work,” said Lt. Col. Matthew Brooks, 9th Bomb Squadron commander. “Our squadron flew 130 more sorties than any B-1 squadron had flown in any other six month deployment. You don’t accomplish this by luck. It’s pure hard work and dedication from the aircraft maintainers, weapon builders and load crews, B-1 aviators, and the rest of the 7th Bomb Wing who deployed with us.”
The 9th EBS and 9th EAMU completed a complex B-1 sustainment block upgrade in the midst of combat operations, while avoiding any degradation in support to ongoing missions. The upgrade, completed to all nine aircraft in only six days, fulfilled an Air Forces Central Urgent Operational Needs request to fully integrate the sniper targeting pod onto the B-1, thereby providing machine-to-machine interface between the targeting pod and weapons, and reducing the targeting timeline by 33 percent.
Interesting -- in the Norwegian analysis of Gripen E and F-35 it was found that Gripen E did meet the requirements to the international role, but not the (more demanding) scenarios that were envisaged in Norway.
The assessment was specifically written to be platform independent so there is no link between Fleet A or Fleet B with specific aircraft.
By: Loke
- 10th March 2016 at 12:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The assessment was specifically written to be platform independent so there is no link between Fleet A or Fleet B with specific aircraft.
I think you missed my point. In Norway the "international role" was the less demanding one; the more demanding one was the "national" role.
Seems to be the opposite in Canada.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 10th March 2016 at 13:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ozair.....you need to read that report again. They have no consideration in that report anywhere for differences in operating costs between fighter types. It's an obviously flawed assumption. Show me anywhere in the report where they reflect operating costs or allow for variation in them. It's held constant. Stupid assumption. I had to read it three times because it invalidates the report by skipping one of the most significant program cost components.
There are no stupid assumptions, the folks in charge are anything but dumb.. Those are deliberately doctored numbers in order to follow the prescribed agenda and push the choice into a desired direction... just like we have seen in Norway.. it must have cost millions, IMHO..
By: Vnomad
- 10th March 2016 at 15:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
FBW has this one right. The Canadians will kick the can for the next few years once the new govt carries out an analysis of the alternatives. Extending the Hornet's life to 2025 only strengthened the F-35's case (might have been designed to do so).
Super Hornet: Only fractionally cheaper than the F-35. Out-of-production: OEM will not mothball the production line to 2022 - overhead would be staggering.
Strike Eagle: Pricier than the F-35 for a new user. Will also be out-of-production.
Rafale: Cost similar to (if not higher than) the F-35. Reduced interoperability with US forces. Offers option of 'Canadianization' (refer India wrt costs).
Eurofighter: Same as above. Likely to be out-of-production.
Leaving only the single-engined Gripen E and F-35A.
Same as in Norway, Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Denmark and (in the future) Poland, except of course that the RCAF is responsible for a far larger country, and has a closer relationship with the USAF. Lets see what Finland, Belgium & Denmark decide, Trudeau may soon be facing some unappealing choices.
By: Ezco
- 10th March 2016 at 16:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
FBW has this one right. The Canadians will kick the can for the next few years once the new govt carries out an analysis of the alternatives. Extending the Hornet's life to 2025 only strengthened the F-35's case (might have been designed to do so).
Super Hornet: Only fractionally cheaper than the F-35. Out-of-production: OEM will not mothball the production line to 2022 - overhead would be staggering.
Strike Eagle: Pricier than the F-35 for a new user. Will also be out-of-production.
Rafale: Cost similar to (if not higher than) the F-35. Reduced interoperability with US forces. Offers option of 'Canadianization' (refer India wrt costs).
Eurofighter: Same as above. Likely to be out-of-production.
Leaving only the single-engined Gripen E and F-35A.
Same as in Norway, Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Denmark and (in the future) Poland, except of course that the RCAF is responsible for a far larger country, and has a closer relationship with the USAF. Lets see what Finland, Belgium & Denmark decide, Trudeau may soon be facing some unappealing choices.
Is there any new inputs concerning the operational cost of the F35?
The last time I checked, due to the massive maintenance cost, even if you get the F35 for free it would be much more costly than any Super Hornet, rafale or Eurofighter once you include the operational costs.
By: Vnomad
- 10th March 2016 at 16:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is there any new inputs concerning the operational cost of the F35?
The last time I checked, due to the massive maintenance cost, even if you get the F35 for free it would be much more costly than any Super Hornet, rafale or Eurofighter once you include the operational costs.
No new input AFAIK. I don't know where you checked from, but this is from the last SAR report -
By: Ginner
- 10th March 2016 at 17:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again, I will quote
No they do not specifically identify the per hour cost difference between operating the two aircraft in a mixed fleet, although the reference document does go into it, but they don't need to. The per hour cost is not significantly different enough between two fighter aircraft compared to the fixed costs of operating two types.
This is evident by the assessment that doubling flight hours only results in a 50% increase in sustainment costs.
[/URL]
What you quoted does not answer my question at all. They did not consider differences in operating costs between fighters. End of story. I am quite confident that there are substantial differences between them. That is illogical for a cost comparison of operating a mixed fleet vs a single platform. A mixed fleet can give you some advantages in operational capability (range and payload vs speed and A2A), and can give you a variable cost advantage that may overcome the duplication of fixed cost components (simulators for example).
The report is flawed. It does not refute the option of managing a mixed fleet. Even a minimal difference of $4,000 per hour x 7,500 hours x 36 planes = just over a $1B dollars. That is material.
If mixed fleets were cost prohibitive, we would not have welcomed bidders on FWSAR to consider submitting mixed fleet proposals. If it gives you optimized capability, you look at it.
By: Vnomad
- 10th March 2016 at 18:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If mixed fleets were cost prohibitive, we would not have welcomed bidders on FWSAR to consider submitting mixed fleet proposals. If it gives you optimized capability, you look at it.
Did the offer result in any mixed fleet proposals?
By: FBW
- 10th March 2016 at 18:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A mixed fleet can give you some advantages in operational capability (range and payload vs speed and A2A), and can give you a variable cost advantage that may overcome the duplication of fixed cost components (simulators for example).
The report is flawed. It does not refute the option of managing a mixed fleet. Even a minimal difference of $4,000 per hour x 7,500 hours x 36 planes = just over a $1B dollars. That is material.
If mixed fleets were cost prohibitive, we would not have welcomed bidders on FWSAR to consider submitting mixed fleet proposals. If it gives you optimized capability, you look at it.
Even assuming CPH of two different fighters were 8,000 or 10,000 apart, it still does not make sense to operate two separate multirole fighters for such a small fleet. Why take on the major expense of another platform just for a minimal gain in one or two mission sets?
How much do you think maintaining two separate training programs, two separate groups of specialized maintainers and ground crew, simulators (a high fidelity basic simulator can cost 12 million, more for a specific fighter simulator ). For each fleet you would need separate stockpiles of initial spares, hours of familiarization/conversion flying time for each type (it costs 2.6 million to train a fighter pilot, now think about having to split your pool of experienced pilots to train on separate aircraft). Then you have weapon certifications if your inventory is not cleared on each of those platforms, or worse having to buy billions of dollars in new weapons (looking at you, Dassault).
An important observation, something that i am aware that you are aware :), but for the rest of the readers, with the increase of the fleet, the F-35A CPFH costs almost certainly will come down (quite a lot) unless it starts to be heavily used in operational scenarios (the ones were the F-15/16/18 are being used today).
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 10th March 2016 at 19:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the old US fleet is getting maintenance heavy, it is only natural their old units are getting costlier to keep flying
An important observation, something that i am aware that you are aware :), but for the rest of the readers, with the increase of the fleet, the F-35A CPFH costs almost certainly will come down (quite a lot)...
unless it starts to be heavily used in operational scenarios (the ones were the F-15/16/18 are being used today).
Mmmm... are you saying something in the bit I put in bold? Like CPFH figures for F-35 are for non-combat use whereas CPFH figures for F-15/16/18 would be lower if they were not being used in combat zones?
By: Ginner
- 10th March 2016 at 20:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Even assuming CPH of two different fighters were 8,000 or 10,000 apart, it still does not make sense to operate two separate multirole fighters for such a small fleet. Why take on the major expense of another platform just for a minimal gain in one or two mission sets?
How much do you think maintaining two separate training programs, two separate groups of specialized maintainers and ground crew, simulators (a high fidelity basic simulator can cost 12 million, more for a specific fighter simulator ). For each fleet you would need separate stockpiles of initial spares, hours of familiarization/conversion flying time for each type (it costs 2.6 million to train a fighter pilot, now think about having to split your pool of experienced pilots to train on separate aircraft). Then you have weapon certifications if your inventory is not cleared on each of those platforms, or worse having to buy billions of dollars in new weapons (looking at you, Dassault).
The rafale is a non-starter in a mixed fleet. I never suggested that is even remotely possible. Based on published Typhoon weapons certification costs, I'd estimate the costs of canadianization of Rafale at around 1Billion dollars. That's a fixed cost no matter if it's 36 or 65 planes. Rafale cannot be part of a mixed fleet, and I'd argue does not need to be.
A mixed Gripen-E/F18-F fleet of 72 aircraft could possibly provide better capability at a lower cost than 65 Typhoons or 65 F-35s, especially considering we don't do SEAD/DEAD first day strike and likely never will. Gripen and the F-18 have pretty much the broadest set of certified weaponry and both aircraft have commonality with our existing muntions and share a similar engine (414).
By: Spitfire9
- 10th March 2016 at 20:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A mixed Gripen-E/F18-F fleet of 72 aircraft could possibly provide better capability at a lower cost than 65 Typhoons or 65 F-35s, especially considering we don't do SEAD/DEAD first day strike and likely never will. Gripen and the F-18 have pretty much the broadest set of certified weaponry and both aircraft have commonality with our existing muntions and share a similar engine (414).
Could any of the F-18 support equipment be used for F/A-18 support (decreasing support costs if F/A-18 were selected)?
By: Ozair
- 10th March 2016 at 21:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What you quoted does not answer my question at all. They did not consider differences in operating costs between fighters. End of story. I am quite confident that there are substantial differences between them. That is illogical for a cost comparison of operating a mixed fleet vs a single platform. A mixed fleet can give you some advantages in operational capability (range and payload vs speed and A2A), and can give you a variable cost advantage that may overcome the duplication of fixed cost components (simulators for example).
You do not understand how much the fixed cost components represent. Typically, the fixed cost portions are two to three times the per flight hour cost. Several of the references in the assessment provide examples of this. The RAAF flies the F/A-18 at a per hour cost somewhere in the region of 15-20k but the total ownership cost, including per flight hour, is closer to 70k.
In maintaining a mixed fleet you have significant additional burdens including training infrastructure such as aircrew, aircraft, operations staff, maintenance staff as well as depot level staff, equipment and spares. For front line squadrons you have similar duplication.
The report makes it very clear, even just looking at aircrew, that to maintain a similar capability with a mixed fleet would require 22 additional aircrew each and every year you operate that mixed fleet of aircraft. Training a fighter pilot now costs somewhere in the region of US$6 million
It currently costs the taxpayer about $6 million a year to train one fighter pilot in today's Air Force.
Factoring for postings, promotions, washouts from training etc if you only trained a third of that required 22 every year for the 30 years you expect to operate the mixed fleet you arrive at a total cost of US$1.26 billion. Even the wages of an additional 22 aircrew, at a very modest 150k per year for 30 years, equates to an extra US$100 million.
That is just for aircrew, include the maintainers, which would be at least 5+ for every additional aircraft, include the additional spares load which you don't get as much of a discount on because the fleet is smaller, include the additional tactics development staff, include the additional specific upgrades required for the airframe during its life and you can begin to see how much additional cost a mixed fleet introduces.
The report is flawed. It does not refute the option of managing a mixed fleet. Even a minimal difference of $4,000 per hour x 7,500 hours x 36 planes = just over a $1B dollars. That is material.
My above figures highlight the failed logic in your simple per flight hour cost comparison. That is before you factor in the discount a nation gets by ordering a larger single fleet compared to two smaller fleets of fighter jets, the reduction in total spares cost and holdings, not having two separate engine overhaul or maintenance facilities etc, single pilot training infrastructure etc. Again, per hour flight cost is not a significant metric in the total cost of ownership of a fighter jet.
If mixed fleets were cost prohibitive, we would not have welcomed bidders on FWSAR to consider submitting mixed fleet proposals. If it gives you optimized capability, you look at it.
Bad example, the mission types and operating environment for FWSAR are dissimilar enough that a mixed fleet can make sense. Ironically, all reporting indicates that none of the final three contenders are offering a mixed fleet anyway…
Canada’s decade-long quest to purchase a new fixed-wing search and rescue (FWSAR) aircraft has come down to three contenders, the Embraer KC-390, Alenia Aermacchi C-27J and Airbus Defence & Space C-295W.
With fighter jets a single multi-role aircraft can fulfil both a NORAD and a NATO role for the RCAF while providing value for money and through life savings.
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 10th March 2016 at 09:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If that's the main question expect a Canadian 180 degrees u turn in the next months.
Posts: 815
By: Ozair - 10th March 2016 at 10:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again, I will quote
No they do not specifically identify the per hour cost difference between operating the two aircraft in a mixed fleet, although the reference document does go into it, but they don't need to. The per hour cost is not significantly different enough between two fighter aircraft compared to the fixed costs of operating two types.
This is evident by the assessment that doubling flight hours only results in a 50% increase in sustainment costs.
I stand by the statement. Plenty of difficult and troublesome aircraft meet their availability rates because the military in question provides sufficient resources to make that happen.
Perfect example is the B-1B which is known as a difficult aircraft to maintain yet in a conflict, with the money provided and motivated workforce, they can do amazing things.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/08/02/the-air-forces-record-breaking-b-1-deployment/
Posts: 815
By: Ozair - 10th March 2016 at 10:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The assessment was specifically written to be platform independent so there is no link between Fleet A or Fleet B with specific aircraft.
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 10th March 2016 at 12:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you missed my point. In Norway the "international role" was the less demanding one; the more demanding one was the "national" role.
Seems to be the opposite in Canada.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 10th March 2016 at 13:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are no stupid assumptions, the folks in charge are anything but dumb.. Those are deliberately doctored numbers in order to follow the prescribed agenda and push the choice into a desired direction... just like we have seen in Norway.. it must have cost millions, IMHO..
Posts: 2,661
By: Vnomad - 10th March 2016 at 15:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
FBW has this one right. The Canadians will kick the can for the next few years once the new govt carries out an analysis of the alternatives. Extending the Hornet's life to 2025 only strengthened the F-35's case (might have been designed to do so).
Super Hornet: Only fractionally cheaper than the F-35. Out-of-production: OEM will not mothball the production line to 2022 - overhead would be staggering.
Strike Eagle: Pricier than the F-35 for a new user. Will also be out-of-production.
Rafale: Cost similar to (if not higher than) the F-35. Reduced interoperability with US forces. Offers option of 'Canadianization' (refer India wrt costs).
Eurofighter: Same as above. Likely to be out-of-production.
Leaving only the single-engined Gripen E and F-35A.
Same as in Norway, Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Denmark and (in the future) Poland, except of course that the RCAF is responsible for a far larger country, and has a closer relationship with the USAF. Lets see what Finland, Belgium & Denmark decide, Trudeau may soon be facing some unappealing choices.
Posts: 174
By: Ezco - 10th March 2016 at 16:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is there any new inputs concerning the operational cost of the F35?
The last time I checked, due to the massive maintenance cost, even if you get the F35 for free it would be much more costly than any Super Hornet, rafale or Eurofighter once you include the operational costs.
Posts: 2,661
By: Vnomad - 10th March 2016 at 16:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No new input AFAIK. I don't know where you checked from, but this is from the last SAR report -
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 10th March 2016 at 17:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does 'Unit Operations' include fuel?
Posts: 2,661
By: Vnomad - 10th March 2016 at 17:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd think so. Doesn't fit under the manpower or maintenance heading.
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 10th March 2016 at 17:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What you quoted does not answer my question at all. They did not consider differences in operating costs between fighters. End of story. I am quite confident that there are substantial differences between them. That is illogical for a cost comparison of operating a mixed fleet vs a single platform. A mixed fleet can give you some advantages in operational capability (range and payload vs speed and A2A), and can give you a variable cost advantage that may overcome the duplication of fixed cost components (simulators for example).
The report is flawed. It does not refute the option of managing a mixed fleet. Even a minimal difference of $4,000 per hour x 7,500 hours x 36 planes = just over a $1B dollars. That is material.
If mixed fleets were cost prohibitive, we would not have welcomed bidders on FWSAR to consider submitting mixed fleet proposals. If it gives you optimized capability, you look at it.
Posts: 2,661
By: Vnomad - 10th March 2016 at 18:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did the offer result in any mixed fleet proposals?
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 10th March 2016 at 18:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Even assuming CPH of two different fighters were 8,000 or 10,000 apart, it still does not make sense to operate two separate multirole fighters for such a small fleet. Why take on the major expense of another platform just for a minimal gain in one or two mission sets?
How much do you think maintaining two separate training programs, two separate groups of specialized maintainers and ground crew, simulators (a high fidelity basic simulator can cost 12 million, more for a specific fighter simulator ). For each fleet you would need separate stockpiles of initial spares, hours of familiarization/conversion flying time for each type (it costs 2.6 million to train a fighter pilot, now think about having to split your pool of experienced pilots to train on separate aircraft). Then you have weapon certifications if your inventory is not cleared on each of those platforms, or worse having to buy billions of dollars in new weapons (looking at you, Dassault).
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 10th March 2016 at 18:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Vnomad, the SAR has this habit of making future predictions that might become true, or not (see the Raptor´s one´s on this last bit).
2015 numbers are these:
F-35 CPFH - $42,200
F-16C/D - $20,318
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35a-cost-and-readiness-data-improves-in-2015-as-fl-421499/
An important observation, something that i am aware that you are aware :), but for the rest of the readers, with the increase of the fleet, the F-35A CPFH costs almost certainly will come down (quite a lot) unless it starts to be heavily used in operational scenarios (the ones were the F-15/16/18 are being used today).
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 10th March 2016 at 19:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the old US fleet is getting maintenance heavy, it is only natural their old units are getting costlier to keep flying
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 10th March 2016 at 19:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mmmm... are you saying something in the bit I put in bold? Like CPFH figures for F-35 are for non-combat use whereas CPFH figures for F-15/16/18 would be lower if they were not being used in combat zones?
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 10th March 2016 at 20:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The rafale is a non-starter in a mixed fleet. I never suggested that is even remotely possible. Based on published Typhoon weapons certification costs, I'd estimate the costs of canadianization of Rafale at around 1Billion dollars. That's a fixed cost no matter if it's 36 or 65 planes. Rafale cannot be part of a mixed fleet, and I'd argue does not need to be.
A mixed Gripen-E/F18-F fleet of 72 aircraft could possibly provide better capability at a lower cost than 65 Typhoons or 65 F-35s, especially considering we don't do SEAD/DEAD first day strike and likely never will. Gripen and the F-18 have pretty much the broadest set of certified weaponry and both aircraft have commonality with our existing muntions and share a similar engine (414).
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 10th March 2016 at 20:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Could any of the F-18 support equipment be used for F/A-18 support (decreasing support costs if F/A-18 were selected)?
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 10th March 2016 at 20:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not likely as everything from radar, avionics, engine, etc is different.
Posts: 815
By: Ozair - 10th March 2016 at 21:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You do not understand how much the fixed cost components represent. Typically, the fixed cost portions are two to three times the per flight hour cost. Several of the references in the assessment provide examples of this. The RAAF flies the F/A-18 at a per hour cost somewhere in the region of 15-20k but the total ownership cost, including per flight hour, is closer to 70k.
In maintaining a mixed fleet you have significant additional burdens including training infrastructure such as aircrew, aircraft, operations staff, maintenance staff as well as depot level staff, equipment and spares. For front line squadrons you have similar duplication.
The report makes it very clear, even just looking at aircrew, that to maintain a similar capability with a mixed fleet would require 22 additional aircrew each and every year you operate that mixed fleet of aircraft. Training a fighter pilot now costs somewhere in the region of US$6 million
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/26/air-force-facing-fighter-pilot-shortage-offers-retention-bonuses-up-to-225000.html
Factoring for postings, promotions, washouts from training etc if you only trained a third of that required 22 every year for the 30 years you expect to operate the mixed fleet you arrive at a total cost of US$1.26 billion. Even the wages of an additional 22 aircrew, at a very modest 150k per year for 30 years, equates to an extra US$100 million.
That is just for aircrew, include the maintainers, which would be at least 5+ for every additional aircraft, include the additional spares load which you don't get as much of a discount on because the fleet is smaller, include the additional tactics development staff, include the additional specific upgrades required for the airframe during its life and you can begin to see how much additional cost a mixed fleet introduces.
My above figures highlight the failed logic in your simple per flight hour cost comparison. That is before you factor in the discount a nation gets by ordering a larger single fleet compared to two smaller fleets of fighter jets, the reduction in total spares cost and holdings, not having two separate engine overhaul or maintenance facilities etc, single pilot training infrastructure etc. Again, per hour flight cost is not a significant metric in the total cost of ownership of a fighter jet.
Bad example, the mission types and operating environment for FWSAR are dissimilar enough that a mixed fleet can make sense. Ironically, all reporting indicates that none of the final three contenders are offering a mixed fleet anyway…
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-c-130j-not-entered-in-canadian-fwsar-compet-420931/
With fighter jets a single multi-role aircraft can fulfil both a NORAD and a NATO role for the RCAF while providing value for money and through life savings.