Sukhoi Su-30MKI

Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
Spares issue could be resolved if GoI provides assurances



Russian firms want purchase assurance from India: Official
PTI|

Dec 07, 2017, 02.36 PM IST

0Comments

Kaldov said Indian officials have told them that Russian manufacturers to participate in international tender exercise if they want to sell their products to the Indian armed forces.

India should assure Russian companies that it will buy their India-made spares and not go for cheaper purchase from a third country to address its armed forces long grievance of delays in procuring critical defence equipmentfrom Moscow, a top Russian official has said.

Viktor N Kladov, director for international cooperation and regional policy, Rostec, a state-owned Russian defence and industrial group, said Russia has chalked out a strategy to build technical service centres in India dedicated for specific equipment.

"India has bought a lot of Soviet and Russian made defence equipment and a bulk of these equipment requires modernisation, upgrade and repair and this can be done in the country (India).

"The way to address this problem is to set up facilities with our partners. We also need assurance from the Indian side that their products will be used by the end user," Kaldov told PTI here.

It has been a long-standing grievance of the Indian armed forces that supply of critical spares and equipment from Russia takes a long-time, affecting maintenance of military systems procured from Moscow.

Terming it a "complicated issue", Kaldov said Rostec was cooperating with Indian defence ministry to address the problem and manufacturing company Russian Helicopters plans to create service in India on the principle of "one window", which will simplify and accelerate the work in this direction.

"This is a pilot project and India is the first country where it is being implemented. India is interested in the implementation of this project, as it is operating the largest fleet of Russian helicopters," he said.

Russia has been a major supplier of military platforms to India.

Kladov said Rostec companies were interested in increasing the efficiency of after-sales service and simplifying the procedures for supply of spare parts to India.

"About a year ago, the Government of Russia decided to grant the right to a number of major Russian defence industry companies to directly conduct after-sales service, repair and modernisation of previously delivered military hardware.

"Now Russian Helicopters, United Engine Corporation, Techmash, Schwabe and High-Precision Weapons can directly interact with Indian customers on these issues," he said.

Kaldov noted that the very sophisticated defence equipment needed to be addressed in a specific workshop and licensed parts and spares should be used and technology of repair should be controlled by the manufacturer and the chief designer of the products.

"This is an issue which is both sided. And our rule is to provide life time support for the equipment. Sometimes the end user becomes opportunistic and its looking to buy spares elsewhere to make it cheaper. So they are outsourced in other countries," he said.

Kaldov said he had pointed out the concerns of the Russian companies regarding production of spares in India in his recent meeting with an Indian minister.

He said the company was offered a space to set up a facility to produce components, spares for electronics, machinery, engines and helicopters in Maharashtra.

Kaldov said Indian officials have told them that Russian manufacturers to participate in international tender exercise if they want to sell their products to the Indian armed forces.

"We will set up facilities and this can only be done if the Indian government assures that the Russian products will be purchased," he said.

Speaking on the issue of India inching closer to the US and Israel in terms of defence deals and procurement, Kladov said he did not see it as a threat, but as a challenge for Russia as the market is becoming more competitive.

"We don't see it as a threat rather as a challenge. It gives us thrust to do better and be more innovative and proactive. We don't fear competition. Let's look at the broader picture, its industrial cooperation, strategic trust which gives us a cutting edge," he said.

Calling the relationship between India and Russia a "privileged strategic partnership", Kladov said it meant "we trust our Indian partners with most sensitive defence inventions and achievements".

"America has many competitive products to offer. It's for Indian government to choose. It's up for the Indian government to build up balances. I can only speak on behalf of the Russian side. We are firm friends and strategic partners of the Indian republic," he said.

Russian firms want purchase assurance from India: Official

That's a completely different issue. The Russians have now realized that they won't be getting any order big ticket item on a silver platter like before. So they're trying to squeeze the maximum out of whatever they've already sold to us.
With the opening up of western suppliers, we've been modernizing the soviet-era weaponry with alternative sub-systems, and the Russians are loosing a lot of money over that as their main source of income is not actually the initial capital paid for the purchase of the system, but rather for spares and maintenance cover of the said system. That's why most of the Soviet/Russian systems have such low availability as they force us to buy spares directly from Russia as they refused to share ToT with us.

Now, as far as the Su-30MKIs are considered, steps have been taken to address the spares/availability issue.

India and Russia on Friday signed two long-term support agreements for the Sukhoi Su-30MKI combat aircraft fleet, which is the mainstay of the Indian Air Force (IAF).

The pacts provides for an upgraded schedule for delivery of spares from Russia for these jets, local manufacturing of parts and a proposed logistics hub for the fighter jets in Bengaluru by HAL.

India, Russia sign long-term support pact on Sukhoi Su-30MKI
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Anonymous_

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
807
789
A Place
{ Cost of acquisition ( # of aircraft + operational + maintenance tools/infrastructure + spares + interest on investment) amortized over the lifespan of the aircraft
+
Cost incurred for flying (fuel, cost of owning/training a pilot, etc) }
/
# of aricraft
=
CPFH ??
CPFH is cost per flying hours. So you also need to divide by number of flight hours the aircraft does. Acquisition cost is not normally included, what you look at instead is basically regular maintenance + logistics & consumables.

Typically, CPFH is high when a new type enters service, becomes lower as the platform matures and maintenance becomes more efficient, then increases again as the aircraft age and start requiring heavier maintenance while type-specific spare parts becomes harder to procure off-the-shelf due to obsolescence.

Another thing is that some parts of maintenance costs are fixed (you're gonna pay them even if the aircraft doesn't fly at all), which means that if you fly an aircraft more hours per year, the CPFH will become lower. Which means that aircraft with low operational availability (you're forced to reduce flight hours because the airplane are not available enough; in other words, missions get cancelled before they start because the airplanes need repair) get a more expensive CPFH; as they force you to reduce the number of flight hours they do.
 
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
{ Cost of acquisition ( # of aircraft + operational + maintenance tools/infrastructure + spares + interest on investment) amortized over the lifespan of the aircraft
+
Cost incurred for flying (fuel, cost of owning/training a pilot, etc) }
/
# of aricraft
=
CPFH ??

Cost per Flight Hour (CPFH) =/= Life Cycle Costs (LCC)

Dont confuse the two.

In CPFH you have both Dry (Airframe alone) and Wet (Airframe + Personnel) costs. Depending on Airforce, the parameters selected for it's calculation changes.

Generally, Dry CPFH calculation includes 3 parameters: Consumable Supplies (10-15%), Fuel (20-25%), and Depot Level Repairables (60-70%), the percentage showing their contribution to the total costs.

Here's an example from the 2012 Swiss evaluation report (for 22 Gripen E):

- the annual operation cost of each Gripen E would be CHF 4.64 mi (US$ 5.20 mi)/year in total, or CHF 0.955 mi (US$ 1.07 mi)/year in fuel, CHF 2.32 mi (US$ 2.60 mi)/year in maintenance, CHF 1.09 mi (US$ 1.22 mi)/year in personnel;

- using a standard calculation with 200 hours per year to obtain the Cost Per Flying Hour (CPFH), we get CHF 4.77 (US$ 5.35) thousand/hour with fuel, CHF 11.6 (US$ 13.0) thousand/hour with maintenance, CHF 5.45 (US$ 6.11) thousand/hour with personnel, giving a subtotal of CHF 16.4 (US$ 18.3) thousand/hour with fuel+maintenance, or total of CHF 21.8 (US$ 24.4) thousand/hour with fuel+maintenance+personnel.
https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal-gazette/2012/9281.pdf (page 9315, 9319)

Older links seem to be deleted.
(http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vb...mp/botschaftrp2012undgripenfondsgesetz.fr.pdf)
(http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vbs/fr/home/medien/rp12/doc.html)



So for Gripen E, Dry CPFH = $18,300/hour, Wet CPFH = $24,400/hour (@Milspec )
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: _Anonymous_

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
1,991
876
France


As the Indian Air Force juggles between the idea of procuring single engine or twin engine fighter jets to replenish its depleted squadron strength, an expert tells Sputnik that the emphasis on single-engine fighter aircraft is a contrived and arbitrary approach to a pressing concern.

New Delhi (Sputnik) – The Indian Air Force (IAF) is at a pivotal crossroads. Despite its impressive capability advancements in recent years, it now faces declining squadron strength as the bulk of its current squadron is either already past their service deadline or is due to retire within the next decade.

Presently, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has 34 squadrons (18-20 fighter jets in a squadron), which include MiG-21, MiG-27, MiG-29, Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Su-30MKI, and Tejas LCA aircraft. The bulk of the combat aircraft belong to the MiG family and all of them are far beyond their official dates of service. The IAF desires the strength of some 42 combat squadrons by the 2027-32 period in order to meet the contingencies of a two-front war with China and Pakistan.

India has contracted three more Su-30MKI, two Dassault Rafale squadrons, and two squadrons of Tejas MK.1 fighters. This will add some seven squadrons to the IAF. However, six squadrons of MiG-21Bison and the two MiG-27UPG will be phased out by 2025. Furthermore, one Jaguar squadron is due to retire by 2027, which would mean an overall deficiency of 13 squadrons by 2027 when set against its desired strength.


The IAF has two options before it to replenish the depleting fleet. The first is the procurement of new single and twin-engine fighter jets. The other involves the procurement of four squadrons of the locally developed Tejas Mk.1A variant.

READ MORE: India Successfully Test-Fires Supersonic Brahmos Missile From Su30MKI

In order to fill the void to be generated from immediate retirements, the IAF is considering issuing a global tender for single engine fighter jets. Twin-engine jet would be acquired at a later stage when funds are available with the force, according to sources.

Vijainder K Thakur, IAF veteran known for his independent views tells Sputnik about the most appropriate options before the force.

Sputnik: The IAF has been pondering over various options to reach out to the required strength of 42 squadrons in the shortest possible time-frame. Despite considering off-the-shelf purchases along with Make-in-India, it is highly unlikely that fleet could be replenished in the next 15 years. How necessary is it for the IAF to have 42 squadrons?

Vijainder K Thakur: If equipped with 42 squadrons of front-line aircraft, the IAF would be a formidable force which would strongly deter any joint adventure by our two adversary neighbors. However, India clearly cannot afford to equip the IAF with 42 squadrons by introducing two very expensive new fighter types into service. If the IAF wants to reach the figure of 42 quickly it should order more Su-30MKIs or MiG-35s.




© AP PHOTO/ AJIT KUMAR
Russia to Upgrade India's Frontline Fighter Jet Su-30MKI Into Super Sukhoi
Sputnik: There has been a tug of war between those favoring single engine fighter jets and those in favor of twin-engine jets. What in your opinion should be the consideration?


Vijainder K Thakur: The requirement for a single engine fighter is contrived and arbitrary. Single engine or multi-engine was not a criterion during the MMRCA acquisition which was ultimately abandoned. Why has it become an important consideration now? The single-engine qualitative requirement was likely introduced purely to limit the choice to the F-16 and SAAB Gripen-E, not out of any operational necessity. The IAF should be focused on the payload, range and operating costs of its fighters, not whether it is single or twin engine.

Sputnik: In October, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa categorically stated that the emphasis on single-engine fighter jets was a cost-cutting attempt whereas the Indian Air Force actually desired twin-engine jets.

Vijainder K Thakur: Single engine fighters are claimed to have lower operating costs. However, the evidence to support the claim is not convincing. According to Forbes, the operating cost-per-hour for a F-16C is $8,278 and for the F/A-18E is $10,507. The difference is marginal and if you factor in the F/A-18E's much greater weapon load and range, the 'single engine is cheaper' claim completely falls apart. On the other hand, many F-16s have crashed because their only engine failed, while many F/A-18s have returned to base safely after losing one engine. Twin engine fighters are unarguably safer to fly! Lesser crashes results in lowered operating costs!

Sputnik: Should the Indian Air Force order more upgraded Su30MKI and Su35 instead of going for the global tender on the single-engine fighter jet?

Vijainder K Thakur: The IAF has ordered 272 Su-30 aircraft, enough to equip around 23 — 24 squadrons. Considering that at one point in time the IAF was operating with around 30 squadrons of MiG-21 variants, there is scope to order additional upgraded Su-30MKI or Su-35s. The aircraft is currently under production at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) Nasik division. Also, the Su-30MKI is a perfect fit for the IAF doctrine, which advocates use of fighter aircraft that can perform any role.

Sputnik: The why is the IAF not considering the purchase of additional Su30MKI?

Vijainder K Thakur: The IAF should be considering additional upgraded Su-30MKIs/Su-35 or MiG-35 to limit and optimize its inventory. The imperatives for not considering additional Su-30MKIs/Su-35/MiG-35 are likely geopolitical, not operational.

Sputnik: Is this because the Indian Air Force wants different types of fighter jets in its inventory?

Vijainder K Thakur: The USAF operates 4 fighter types: F-16, F-15, A-10, and F-22. It is in the process of replacing its A-10 and F-16 fighters with the F-35A. In other words, the USAF aims to reduce the types of fighters in its inventory from four to three. The US Navy, the second largest air force in the world, operates with a single fighter type — F/A-18. It is in the process of replacing the older F/A-18 variants with the F-35C. In other words, the USN inventory fighter types are set to increase from 1 to 2. The RuAF operates 4 fighter types — Su-27/30/35, MiG-29, MiG-31 and Su-25 (The Su-34 is a bomber). The IAF currently operates seven fighter types: MiG-21 variants, MiG-27 variants, MiG-29 variants, Jaguar, Mirage 2000, Su-30MKI, and Tejas LCA. It's set to introduce 8th type — Rafale! Clearly, there is a need for the IAF to reduce the types of fighters in its inventory, not the other way around!

Air Force Veteran Suggests India Should Go for More Russian Su-30MKI/Su-35
IAF shortage is in medium and light fighters. Not in heavy ones.
The actual fleet of Su30 is well dimensioned.

The real problem is that Tejas is late, rare and (now) under specifications.
 

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
1,991
876
France
Cost per Flight Hour (CPFH) =/= Life Cycle Costs (LCC)

Dont confuse the two.

In CPFH you have both Dry (Airframe alone) and Wet (Airframe + Personnel) costs. Depending on Airforce, the parameters selected for it's calculation changes.

Generally, Dry CPFH calculation includes 3 parameters: Consumable Supplies (10-15%), Fuel (20-25%), and Depot Level Repairables (60-70%), the percentage showing their contribution to the total costs.

Here's an example from the 2012 Swiss evaluation report (for 22 Gripen E):

- the annual operation cost of each Gripen E would be CHF 4.64 mi (US$ 5.20 mi)/year in total, or CHF 0.955 mi (US$ 1.07 mi)/year in fuel, CHF 2.32 mi (US$ 2.60 mi)/year in maintenance, CHF 1.09 mi (US$ 1.22 mi)/year in personnel;

- using a standard calculation with 200 hours per year to obtain the Cost Per Flying Hour (CPFH), we get CHF 4.77 (US$ 5.35) thousand/hour with fuel, CHF 11.6 (US$ 13.0) thousand/hour with maintenance, CHF 5.45 (US$ 6.11) thousand/hour with personnel, giving a subtotal of CHF 16.4 (US$ 18.3) thousand/hour with fuel+maintenance, or total of CHF 21.8 (US$ 24.4) thousand/hour with fuel+maintenance+personnel.
https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal-gazette/2012/9281.pdf (page 9315, 9319)

Older links seem to be deleted.
(http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vb...mp/botschaftrp2012undgripenfondsgesetz.fr.pdf)
(http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vbs/fr/home/medien/rp12/doc.html)



So for Gripen E, Dry CPFH = $18,300/hour, Wet CPFH = $24,400/hour (@Milspec )
It's a difficult and dangerous task to give CPFH for a plane not on duty...

All is already said for actual planes, so what about futur ones?
 
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
It's a difficult and dangerous task to give CPFH for a plane not on duty...

All is already said for actual planes, so what about futur ones?

I agree, so the statement from SAAB that says the CPFH for Gripen E will be $4,500/ hour should be taken with a pinch of salt too, is it not?

As far is this particular case is considered, the Swiss evaluation committee calculated the costs based on the figures given to them by SAAB, while considering the labor costs and fuel costs that exist in the country. For SAAB, its easier to calculate the CPFH of Gripen E as they already have a benchmark i.e. Gripen C. The CPFH will be high initially but will stabilize once the fleet is mature.

Another example is the case of F-35 (be it the costs are calculated for LSPs and not fully operational jets). The calculated CPFH before induction was found to be much less than the actual CPFH during operation.
 

smestarz

Well-Known member
Nov 30, 2017
538
323
Actung Panzers
I really wonder if the articles is genuine or written by expert, I might just call it trying to glorify Su-30 MKI and Brahmos.
For example it talks about the speed of Brahmos as . 3000 kms per second, Guess the guy mixed up between second and hour a difference of 3600 in itself.

India's Jet Fighters Now Equipped with Nuclear-Armed Missiles
India’s nuclear command has begun receiving fighter jets armed with the country’s most advanced, supersonic cruise missile. According to media reports,




India’s nuclear command has begun receiving fighter jets armed with the country’s most advanced, supersonic cruise missile.

According to media reports, India’s Strategic Forces Command (SFC) has begun receiving 42 Su-30MKI air dominance fighters modified to carry air-launched BrahMos supersonic cruise missile. This will significantly enhance the striking power of the air leg of India’s nuclear triad.

“Individually, the Su-30 and BrahMos are powerful weapons,” Russia and India Report noted . “But when the world’s most capable fourth generation fighter is armed with a uniquely destructive cruise missile, together they are a dramatic force multiplier.”

The Sukhoi Su-30 MKI is a twin-seater, highly maneuverable, fourth-generation multirole combat fighter aircraft built by Russia’s Sukhoi Design Bureau and licensed to India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. The plane will serve as the backbone of India’s Air Force through 2020 and beyond. Delhi has already acquired around 200 jets, and eventually plans to acquire 282 of them.

The Brahmos is jointly developed by India’s Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and Russia’s NPO Mashinostroeyenia. Capable of traveling at speeds of Mach 3.0, the Brahmos is the fastest cruise missile in the world. As Russia and India Report explained, “The BrahMos’ 3000 km per second speed – literally faster than a bullet – means it hits the target with a huge amount of kinetic energy. In tests, the BrahMos has often cut warships in half and reduced ground targets to smithereens.”

The same report notes that the Su-30 will add to the Brahmos’ already deadly effect. “The Sukhoi’s blistering speed will add extra launch momentum to the missile, plus the aircraft’s ability to penetrate hardened air defences means there is a greater chance for the pilot to deliver the missile on to its designated targets.”

Pairing the Su-30 with the Brahmos missile will also drastically expand the striking power of the air leg of India’s nuclear triad. The Su-30 itself has a range of up to 1,800 kilometers while the Brahmos missile can strike targets nearly 300 kilometers away. Thus, the newly modified Su-30s will allow India’s nuclear aircraft to strike deep in the heart of China or Pakistan, Delhi’s two main adversaries.

The plan to modify the Su-30 to carry the Brahmos missiles was first hatched back in 2010 when the SFC submitted a proposal for two squadrons of Su-30s to be put under its command. Later, in 2012, India’s cabinet approved the project to modify 42 Su-30s to carry 216 Brahmos missiles. According to the Times of India , the integration project was mostly carried out by BrahMos Aerospace, with HAL also contributing crucial modifications.

The first of the new planes was handed over to the SFC in February and is believed to have undergone tests last month. Production on the second of the modified Su-30s has already begun. It is unclear when the SFC expects to receive the rest of the planes.

The Brahmos-armed Su-30s is only one of the ways that India is strengthening its strategic deterrent [5]. It has also been busy testing the Agni-V, which is three-stage solid-fueled intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) with a range of about 5,000 km. When the Agni-V is inducted into service, India will have the ability to strike any part of China with nuclear weapons for the first time. Furthermore, India is currently testing ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), which will complete the nuclear triad.

source: www.scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Indias-Jet-Fighters-Are-Now-Equipped-with-Nuclear-Armed-Missiles-109840332

@Hellfire
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GuardianRED

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
1,991
876
France
I agree, so the statement from SAAB that says the CPFH for Gripen E will be $4,500/ hour should be taken with a pinch of salt too, is it not?

As far is this particular case is considered, the Swiss evaluation committee calculated the costs based on the figures given to them by SAAB, while considering the labor costs and fuel costs that exist in the country. For SAAB, its easier to calculate the CPFH of Gripen E as they already have a benchmark i.e. Gripen C. The CPFH will be high initially but will stabilize once the fleet is mature.

Another example is the case of F-35 (be it the costs are calculated for LSPs and not fully operational jets). The calculated CPFH before induction was found to be much less than the actual CPFH during operation.
The Swiss evaluation committee ......

The plane the swiss air force wanted was not Gripen. The then DM forced the Gripen option, so I didn't trust the calculation made by a supposed evaluation committee that didn't validate the choosen plane. It's at least unclear, and probably biaised.
 
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
The Swiss evaluation committee ......

The plane the swiss air force wanted was not Gripen. The then DM forced the Gripen option, so I didn't trust the calculation made by a supposed evaluation committee that didn't validate the choosen plane. It's at least unclear, and probably biaised.

From what I was able to understand, the Swiss has added the cost of maintaining the airbase as well as the service depot/spares inventory to the CPFH as well.
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,174
2,792
United States
Cost per Flight Hour (CPFH) =/= Life Cycle Costs (LCC)

Dont confuse the two.

In CPFH you have both Dry (Airframe alone) and Wet (Airframe + Personnel) costs. Depending on Airforce, the parameters selected for it's calculation changes.

Generally, Dry CPFH calculation includes 3 parameters: Consumable Supplies (10-15%), Fuel (20-25%), and Depot Level Repairables (60-70%), the percentage showing their contribution to the total costs.

Here's an example from the 2012 Swiss evaluation report (for 22 Gripen E):

- the annual operation cost of each Gripen E would be CHF 4.64 mi (US$ 5.20 mi)/year in total, or CHF 0.955 mi (US$ 1.07 mi)/year in fuel, CHF 2.32 mi (US$ 2.60 mi)/year in maintenance, CHF 1.09 mi (US$ 1.22 mi)/year in personnel;

- using a standard calculation with 200 hours per year to obtain the Cost Per Flying Hour (CPFH), we get CHF 4.77 (US$ 5.35) thousand/hour with fuel, CHF 11.6 (US$ 13.0) thousand/hour with maintenance, CHF 5.45 (US$ 6.11) thousand/hour with personnel, giving a subtotal of CHF 16.4 (US$ 18.3) thousand/hour with fuel+maintenance, or total of CHF 21.8 (US$ 24.4) thousand/hour with fuel+maintenance+personnel.
https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/federal-gazette/2012/9281.pdf (page 9315, 9319)

Older links seem to be deleted.
(http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vb...mp/botschaftrp2012undgripenfondsgesetz.fr.pdf)
(http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vbs/fr/home/medien/rp12/doc.html)



So for Gripen E, Dry CPFH = $18,300/hour, Wet CPFH = $24,400/hour (@Milspec )


So Gripen is 24K /hr and as per your estimates Rafales are 10K/hr. (y) Sounds Legit.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,295
8,557
India
I agree, so the statement from SAAB that says the CPFH for Gripen E will be $4,500/ hour should be taken with a pinch of salt too, is it not?

As far is this particular case is considered, the Swiss evaluation committee calculated the costs based on the figures given to them by SAAB, while considering the labor costs and fuel costs that exist in the country. For SAAB, its easier to calculate the CPFH of Gripen E as they already have a benchmark i.e. Gripen C. The CPFH will be high initially but will stabilize once the fleet is mature.

Another example is the case of F-35 (be it the costs are calculated for LSPs and not fully operational jets). The calculated CPFH before induction was found to be much less than the actual CPFH during operation.

The only costs that matter are spares consumption and maintenance. Personnel cost is irrelevant for India, it's too small. And fuel costs can be calculated easily, fuel capacity/advertised endurance*market rate of jet fuel.

Let's assume MKI's maintenance costs $4000 per hour, Rafale's costs $1500 and Gripen's costs $1000.

Rafale's spares are $10,000 something. It's internal fuel endurance is 2.5 hours. So we get fuel cost at around $3500 per hour. That's about $15000 CPFH.
MKI's spares are $12000. Fuel should cost $5000. That's about $21000.
Gripen's spares are estimated to be around $5000. If we assume $2500 in fuel costs. That's about $8500.

This is how much I assume these jets will cost. Rafale's and Gripen's spares costs are international prices, it should become less with Indian production.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Nick
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
So Gripen is 24K /hr and as per your estimates Rafales are 10K/hr. (y) Sounds Legit.

Don't read between the lines, or in this case, my comments.
I've clearly mentioned that the CPFH values are specific to each airforce.

Where the Gripen was evaluated at $18,300 by the Swiss, the Rafales evaluated with the same rules would cost them >$30,000 to operate.

In the same way, where the Rafales would cost IAF around $10,000 Dry CPFH, the Gripen would cost only around $5,000
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashwin
Dec 4, 2017
238
411
France
The only costs that matter are spares consumption and maintenance. Personnel cost is irrelevant for India, it's too small. And fuel costs can be calculated easily, fuel capacity/advertised endurance*market rate of jet fuel.

Let's assume MKI's maintenance costs $4000 per hour, Rafale's costs $1500 and Gripen's costs $1000.

Rafale's spares are $10,000 something. It's internal fuel endurance is 2.5 hours. So we get fuel cost at around $3500 per hour. That's about $15000 CPFH.
MKI's spares are $12000. Fuel should cost $5000. That's about $21000.
Gripen's spares are estimated to be around $5000. If we assume $2500 in fuel costs. That's about $8500.

This is how much I assume these jets will cost. Rafale's and Gripen's spares costs are international prices, it should become less with Indian production.

Yes, the personnel costs are very less, and i did not factor them in as well. And your values are very close to my estimates as well, if not a bit higher for MKI and Rafales.
 

Milspec

सर्वदा शक्तिशाली; सर्वत्र विजय
Moderator
Dec 2, 2017
2,174
2,792
United States
Don't read between the lines, or in this case, my comments.
I've clearly mentioned that the CPFH values are specific to each airforce.

Where the Gripen was evaluated at $18,300 by the Swiss, the Rafales evaluated with the same rules would cost them >$30,000 to operate.

In the same way, where the Rafales would cost IAF around $10,000 Dry CPFH, the Gripen would cost only around $5,000
read this
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a499658.pdf
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,295
8,557
India
The only costs that matter are spares consumption and maintenance. Personnel cost is irrelevant for India, it's too small. And fuel costs can be calculated easily, fuel capacity/advertised endurance*market rate of jet fuel.

Let's assume MKI's maintenance costs $4000 per hour, Rafale's costs $1500 and Gripen's costs $1000.

Rafale's spares are $10,000 something. It's internal fuel endurance is 2.5 hours. So we get fuel cost at around $3500 per hour. That's about $15000 CPFH.
MKI's spares are $12000. Fuel should cost $5000. That's about $21000.
Gripen's spares are estimated to be around $5000. If we assume $2500 in fuel costs. That's about $8500.

This is how much I assume these jets will cost. Rafale's and Gripen's spares costs are international prices, it should become less with Indian production.

@Picdelamirand-oil @halloweene

Your opinions?