KUALA LUMPUR: The Royal Malaysian Air Force’s (RMAF) MiG-29 fighter jets will be gradually phased out and replaced by new interceptor aircraft by Dec 31 2010 due to rising operational and maintenance costs, Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said.
He said replacement aircraft was needed due to increasing maintenence costs and that the MiG-29s were nearing their lifespan limit of 10 years:confused:. Two such aircraft had also crashed in 1998 and 2005.
Zahid said only 10 MiG-29s will be used for airspace defence and this will be reduced to six aircraft until December next year.
“The Government will save RM260mil ($75.5 million) per year in maintenance costs and these savings will be used to maintain other types of aircraft in the RMAF inventory,” he told Datuk Abd Rahman Dahlan (BN-Kota Belud).
Abd Rahman also asked why Malaysia had bought the MiG-29s.
“Malaysia bought the MiG-29s at a relatively low price, but later on the RMAF had to contend with higher expenses in spare parts replacement and maintenence work,” he added.
Zahid replied that when Malaysia bought 18 MiG-29 aircraft in 1993, the jet was considered the most capable and versatile fighter aircraft that could be obtained at the time.
He also said that each MiG-29 needed to undergo preventive and restoration work which cost RM10mil ($2.9 million) and RM7mil ($2 million) for engine overhaul every year after it completes a flight time of between 1,000 hours and 4,000 hours.
“The MiG-29s will be replaced by 18 Russian-made Sukhoi SU30MKM fighter jets which the Government had just acquired,” he added.
Later, at the Parliament lobby, Zahid the cost to maintain the MiGs was too high because the jets also needed to be sent to Russia for overhaul work.
Zahid said many countries have also moved towards obtaining fighter jets with multi-role combat capabilities.
“We are assessing whether to get the new jets from the United States, France, Sweden or Britain. The purchase will also depend on the country’s economic recovery,” he added.
By: toan
- 30th October 2009 at 03:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The structural life of MIG-29 in 1990s was 3,000 flight hours. So if an Airforce use it for mission too frequently (like RAF, which can accumulate 30 flight hours per month for its own Typhoons....), then it is very nature that MIG-29 will reach its upper limit of service life in ten years.....
The similar problem may also happen to USAF's Raptor and RAF's Typhoon in the foreseeable future ~ Too many jobs for too few fighters to do......
By: ocay84
- 30th October 2009 at 14:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What about F-35?
Recently Australian parliament states that F-35:
-Fly Away costs roughly 69 million USD
-Procurment costs roughly 100 million USD
-30 year life long costs roughly 225 million USD
So after procurment in 30 years each F-35 will cost 125 million USD, meaning that for each F-35 4.2 million USD must be spend. Lets claim that Australian pilots will fly avarage 210 hours per year, so we get roughly 20.000 USD for each flight hour.
I think this cost includes fuel, training of pilot and techicians and their work hours; maintains, repairs, overhaul of body, engine, electronics; used spares etc.
And there are different points of cost of each aircraft. Normally we can say that F-15s are more expensive to operate than F-16s. But in war times, you will need more F-16s inorder to accomplish missions as F-15s does. Let says for CAP mission in a big region inorder to give 24 hours continues mission, lets say you will need 18 F-15s, but if you use F-16s you will need 25 aircraft for given mission. Because F-15s carry more fuel, stay in air more, carry bigger radars and more missile... So this time one should compare costs of 18 F-15s and 25 F-16s. So things are getting complicated.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 30th October 2009 at 15:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Availability and sortie rate will play a larger role.
F-35 CPFH is expected to be more then F-16, but i'd be surprised if it's not going to be less then F-18E, it has after all only one engine, (tho big enough to fit a jumbo jet)
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 8th January 2011 at 18:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: MadRat
- 9th January 2011 at 05:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Taiwan needs an upgrade path for their Mirage and with Rafale out of the picture it seems strange for France to high ball. France loses big if they lose the customer. I'm guessing France retains rights over resale of the airframe and thwarts reselling them. This whole sorid story cannot have a happy ending.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 14th July 2012 at 07:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: Sens
- 14th July 2012 at 13:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The structural life of MIG-29 in 1990s was 3,000 flight hours. So if an Airforce use it for mission too frequently (like RAF, which can accumulate 30 flight hours per month for its own Typhoons....), then it is very nature that MIG-29 will reach its upper limit of service life in ten years.....
The similar problem may also happen to USAF's Raptor and RAF's Typhoon in the foreseeable future ~ Too many jobs for too few fighters to do......
The Russian designs have specific life-time cycle. (50h, 100h, 200h, 500h f.e. a.s.o.) The warranty of the producer allows a number of flight hour or a period of time, whatever is reached first. For the MiG-29 system the RD-33 engine was the most critical item about that. For the MiG-29 it was 3000 hours or 30 years, but with the option to rework it for a further lease of life depending of the real condition and a new warranty.
A MiG-29 operated 2000 hours within 10 years is in need of new engines f.e. We have no idea about the warranty conditions of MAPO, when the MiG-29 is operated in tropic ones like Malaysia.
By the way every fighter has to be send to the producer for rework nearly. Just a few countries have facilities certificated by the producer of that fighter to allow that rework at home and keep the warranty.
operating costs tend to be synonymous with weight. no surprise heafty f-35 and F-18 cost more to run than smaller F-16 and Gripen. Eurofighter weighs slightly more than Rafale.
By: Curious
- 16th July 2012 at 15:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Break up of cost is also important. For instance, how is manpower hour cost calculated? Further, adjustment has to be applied for how long the aircraft is unavailable for combat each year
By: Sens
- 16th July 2012 at 18:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
operating costs tend to be synonymous with weight. no surprise heafty f-35 and F-18 cost more to run than smaller F-16 and Gripen. Eurofighter weighs slightly more than Rafale.
Correct observation for a given technology standard.
By: Sens
- 18th July 2012 at 17:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do you more advanced technology is cheaper such as more stable programming, better quality avionics, Aesa over traditional radar technology?
Not cheaper. When someone compares different generations of technology he can get the impression that the newer one is cheaper per performance output in general.
In some areas it is when in others it is not. The overhead cost ratio rises for smaller production runs. It takes several years to certificate a CPU for example for operational use in a fighter. By that alone the military technology is behind the civil one several years in certain areas. To keep certification cost as low as possible every fighter is a mix of old=certificated and new=to certificate technology. To give AESA a better cost ratio over traditional radar technology is still some years in the future. Similar thing with the related software in need to make practical use of the possible gains of the newer technology. All the new fighters came as "green banana" to the user who has the "honor" to pay for the extra cost to get the sweet "yellow ones" promised in the advertisement leaflets. See the "lunatic" flight cost per hour in some AFs about that.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 15th September 2012 at 18:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: Nicolas10
- 2nd October 2012 at 09:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Realistically, Taiwan can't expect "honorable" dealings in defense deals any more: #1 because the states it would conclude a defense deal with (bar El Salvador or something) ALL recognize the sovereignty of PRC over Taiwan, thus meaning such states would be acting in a completely DIS-honest, TWO-FACED manner by selling advanced defence material to what is by their own frame of reference a separatist province. Obviously this doesn't apply to the vast majority of countries not in such a position as Taiwan.
This also explains why France won't make any gift to Taiwan wrt arms sales anymore.
Costs for the A-10 more expensive than for the F-16C? That's a surprise, the extra motor must make a big difference?
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 15th December 2012 at 00:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Various leakers in Brazil have a difference of opinion
"It's the operating cost that counts. The cost per hour of flight, of maintenance, of the electronics.
We are a poor country and all this has to last for the next 30 years."
He added: "The Rafale is not the most expensive offer in terms of operating cost. That's the F/A-18."
Posts: 1,615
By: vikasrehman - 29th October 2009 at 01:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not a very well written piece, but...
About Malaysian Mig-29
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/10/28/nation/20091028145509&sec=nation
Parliament: MiG-29s to be phased out by end-2010
By ZULKIFLI ABD RAHMAN and LOH FOON FONG
KUALA LUMPUR: The Royal Malaysian Air Force’s (RMAF) MiG-29 fighter jets will be gradually phased out and replaced by new interceptor aircraft by Dec 31 2010 due to rising operational and maintenance costs, Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said.
He said replacement aircraft was needed due to increasing maintenence costs and that the MiG-29s were nearing their lifespan limit of 10 years:confused:. Two such aircraft had also crashed in 1998 and 2005.
Zahid said only 10 MiG-29s will be used for airspace defence and this will be reduced to six aircraft until December next year.
“The Government will save RM260mil ($75.5 million) per year in maintenance costs and these savings will be used to maintain other types of aircraft in the RMAF inventory,” he told Datuk Abd Rahman Dahlan (BN-Kota Belud).
Abd Rahman also asked why Malaysia had bought the MiG-29s.
“Malaysia bought the MiG-29s at a relatively low price, but later on the RMAF had to contend with higher expenses in spare parts replacement and maintenence work,” he added.
Zahid replied that when Malaysia bought 18 MiG-29 aircraft in 1993, the jet was considered the most capable and versatile fighter aircraft that could be obtained at the time.
He also said that each MiG-29 needed to undergo preventive and restoration work which cost RM10mil ($2.9 million) and RM7mil ($2 million) for engine overhaul every year after it completes a flight time of between 1,000 hours and 4,000 hours.
“The MiG-29s will be replaced by 18 Russian-made Sukhoi SU30MKM fighter jets which the Government had just acquired,” he added.
Later, at the Parliament lobby, Zahid the cost to maintain the MiGs was too high because the jets also needed to be sent to Russia for overhaul work.
Zahid said many countries have also moved towards obtaining fighter jets with multi-role combat capabilities.
“We are assessing whether to get the new jets from the United States, France, Sweden or Britain. The purchase will also depend on the country’s economic recovery,” he added.
Posts: 992
By: toan - 30th October 2009 at 03:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The structural life of MIG-29 in 1990s was 3,000 flight hours. So if an Airforce use it for mission too frequently (like RAF, which can accumulate 30 flight hours per month for its own Typhoons....), then it is very nature that MIG-29 will reach its upper limit of service life in ten years.....
The similar problem may also happen to USAF's Raptor and RAF's Typhoon in the foreseeable future ~ Too many jobs for too few fighters to do......
Posts: 178
By: ocay84 - 30th October 2009 at 14:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What about F-35?
Recently Australian parliament states that F-35:
-Fly Away costs roughly 69 million USD
-Procurment costs roughly 100 million USD
-30 year life long costs roughly 225 million USD
So after procurment in 30 years each F-35 will cost 125 million USD, meaning that for each F-35 4.2 million USD must be spend. Lets claim that Australian pilots will fly avarage 210 hours per year, so we get roughly 20.000 USD for each flight hour.
I think this cost includes fuel, training of pilot and techicians and their work hours; maintains, repairs, overhaul of body, engine, electronics; used spares etc.
And there are different points of cost of each aircraft. Normally we can say that F-15s are more expensive to operate than F-16s. But in war times, you will need more F-16s inorder to accomplish missions as F-15s does. Let says for CAP mission in a big region inorder to give 24 hours continues mission, lets say you will need 18 F-15s, but if you use F-16s you will need 25 aircraft for given mission. Because F-15s carry more fuel, stay in air more, carry bigger radars and more missile... So this time one should compare costs of 18 F-15s and 25 F-16s. So things are getting complicated.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 30th October 2009 at 15:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Availability and sortie rate will play a larger role.
F-35 CPFH is expected to be more then F-16, but i'd be surprised if it's not going to be less then F-18E, it has after all only one engine, (tho big enough to fit a jumbo jet)
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 8th January 2011 at 18:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At long last:
F-35B/C Projected CPFH $30.7K and importantly compared to F-18D $18.9K
I'm surprised it will cost more than F-18
http://startelegram.typepad.com/files/navy-don_f-35_total-cost-of-ownership_04jan10.pdf
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 8th January 2011 at 19:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
how about the A model?
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 9th January 2011 at 05:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Taiwan needs an upgrade path for their Mirage and with Rafale out of the picture it seems strange for France to high ball. France loses big if they lose the customer. I'm guessing France retains rights over resale of the airframe and thwarts reselling them. This whole sorid story cannot have a happy ending.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 14th July 2012 at 07:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At last a list with most modern fighters, by Janes 2012-07-04,
just a pity Su-30 wasn't included.
http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 14th July 2012 at 13:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Russian designs have specific life-time cycle. (50h, 100h, 200h, 500h f.e. a.s.o.) The warranty of the producer allows a number of flight hour or a period of time, whatever is reached first. For the MiG-29 system the RD-33 engine was the most critical item about that. For the MiG-29 it was 3000 hours or 30 years, but with the option to rework it for a further lease of life depending of the real condition and a new warranty.
A MiG-29 operated 2000 hours within 10 years is in need of new engines f.e. We have no idea about the warranty conditions of MAPO, when the MiG-29 is operated in tropic ones like Malaysia.
By the way every fighter has to be send to the producer for rework nearly. Just a few countries have facilities certificated by the producer of that fighter to allow that rework at home and keep the warranty.
Posts: 445
By: Italy - 15th July 2012 at 19:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
operating costs tend to be synonymous with weight. no surprise heafty f-35 and F-18 cost more to run than smaller F-16 and Gripen. Eurofighter weighs slightly more than Rafale.
Posts: 343
By: Curious - 16th July 2012 at 15:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Break up of cost is also important. For instance, how is manpower hour cost calculated? Further, adjustment has to be applied for how long the aircraft is unavailable for combat each year
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 16th July 2012 at 18:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Correct observation for a given technology standard.
Posts: 208
By: Halo - 18th July 2012 at 08:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do you more advanced technology is cheaper such as more stable programming, better quality avionics, Aesa over traditional radar technology?
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 18th July 2012 at 17:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not cheaper. When someone compares different generations of technology he can get the impression that the newer one is cheaper per performance output in general.
In some areas it is when in others it is not. The overhead cost ratio rises for smaller production runs. It takes several years to certificate a CPU for example for operational use in a fighter. By that alone the military technology is behind the civil one several years in certain areas. To keep certification cost as low as possible every fighter is a mix of old=certificated and new=to certificate technology. To give AESA a better cost ratio over traditional radar technology is still some years in the future. Similar thing with the related software in need to make practical use of the possible gains of the newer technology. All the new fighters came as "green banana" to the user who has the "honor" to pay for the extra cost to get the sweet "yellow ones" promised in the advertisement leaflets. See the "lunatic" flight cost per hour in some AFs about that.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 15th September 2012 at 18:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indians get it
http://www.stratpost.com/why-fighter-operating-costs-matter
Posts: 93
By: comoford - 2nd October 2012 at 05:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From August 2011.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/08/exclusive-us-air-force-combat.html
(2010 data)
A-10A: 24,000
F-15C: 36,633
F-15E: 28,639
F-16C: 16,087
B-1B: 63,215
B-2A: 135,182
B-52H: 72,793
C-130H: 18,546
C-130J: 14,669
C-17A: 17,998
C-5B: 49,060
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 2nd October 2012 at 06:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cost is totally sky-rocketing, compare with as late as 2009
Ownership CPFH
B-52 $34.158
B-1 $48.293
B-2 $78.007
F-15 $17,465
F-22 $19,750
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2009/July%202009/July%2013%202009/AndtheAirForce%E2%80%99sTake.aspx
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 2nd October 2012 at 09:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This also explains why France won't make any gift to Taiwan wrt arms sales anymore.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/full-steam-ahead-for-taiwan-frigate-corruption-investigation-01546/
Nic
Posts: 2,814
By: Levsha - 2nd October 2012 at 11:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Costs for the A-10 more expensive than for the F-16C? That's a surprise, the extra motor must make a big difference?
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 15th December 2012 at 00:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Various leakers in Brazil have a difference of opinion
http://www.france24.com/en/20090906-...silva-brasilia
vs
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/12/12/Brazil-fighter-deal-seen-to-favor-Boeing/UPI-34951355310735/