The Canadian Air Force's Future

[Butters]

Ok, I have to laugh - good find Butters but some of the comments posted from that article sum it up...

"As presented, it looks like FY2008 $/flying hours are compared to dollars in the 2020s. 40% higher would be the same as less than 2% annual inflation over 20 years."

"OK, blowing up the teeny-weeny slide.... I see that TOC 'claimed' includes adjustment for inflation and indirect cost increases, This leaves direct cost increases unrelated to inflation. What is the cost of fuel estimate in the far future?
The real question is how does this compare to the TOC of keeping the F-18 alive and effective through 2029?

Apples and apples are needed. This slide is apples and oranges."

I bet David E. Burgess never turned a wrench or managed a NAVAIR budget.

Well, it you feel that those commenters are more credible than the USN's own cost manager, that's up to you. Interestingly enough, LM's Crowley pooh-pohed it as being no more credible than the JET report. Who was right in that case...?

All our LM differences aside, what did you think of the paper on AC prices?

BTW, here's the NAVAIR report:

http://startelegram.typepad.com/files/navy-don_f-35_total-cost-of-ownership_04jan10.pdf

JL

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well, it you feel that those commenters are more credible than the USN's own cost manager, that's up to you. Interestingly enough, LM's Crowley pooh-pohed it as being no more credible than the JET report. Who was right in that case...?

"The one who actually operates the aircraft and knows what maintenance and operating costs are REALLY going to be."

All our LM differences aside, what did you think of the paper on AC prices?

BTW, here's the NAVAIR report:

http://startelegram.typepad.com/files/navy-don_f-35_total-cost-of-ownership_04jan10.pdf

JL

What is being shown is the disconnect between acquisition and sustainment. Right now I'm working with the USAF on a similar situation. What this is boiling down to is being able to come up with a crystal ball that could predict operating costs so when the Navy fights for budget dollars, they could justify their dollars. All this is fine but as I eluded to earlier, many of there folks are bean counters and have no real concept on aircraft operation and maintenance. They are trying to forecast based on current trends which is kind of difficult because F-35 is several years away from giving real and accurate operating trend data that could really provide sustainment costs.

My 2 cents...

 

[tomo pauk]

While that is true, the things on the aircraft that "wear out" are kept common. I could tell you that you're not normally replacing large airframe components at the squadron level. 71% common airframe components, 90% avionics and electrical components are advertised.

Are those 71% and 90% numbers for F-18E vs. F-18C?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Are those 71% and 90% numbers for F-18E vs. F-18C?

From what I understand, yes

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the info, FLYBOYJ.

So despite having longer hull, broader wings, new intakes, bigger LERX, stronger U/C..., the difference is only 29%? And despite having new radar FLIR (fact, that no-one now produces many of processors stuff that were used back in 1980s, is nowhere stated by Boeing sales people), it yields only 10% difference? Man, this is unbelivable.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks for the info, FLYBOYJ.

So despite having longer hull, broader wings, new intakes, bigger LERX, stronger U/C..., the difference is only 29%? And despite having new radar FLIR (fact, that no-one now produces many of processors stuff that were used back in 1980s, is nowhere stated by Boeing sales people), it yields only 10% difference? Man, this is unbelivable.

It seems that way but the things that were kept common were the things that counted.

There are 3 levels of maintenance in the US Navy. The Squadrons are responsible for the day to day maintenance and its those guys whose job has to be made easy. "I" level maintenance usually involves a shop that overhauls engines and builds QEC (Quick Engine Change) units for C-130s, E-3s and P-3s. At depo level maintenance is where the major aircraft components are inspected, repaired or even changed. Sometimes an aircraft won't see depo for years.

 

[tomo pauk]

It seems that way but the things that were kept common were the things that counted.

I'd say they were cheating. Lying actually.

There are 3 levels of maintenance in the US Navy. The Squadrons are responsible for the day to day maintenance and its those guys whose job has to be made easy. "I" level maintenance usually involves a shop that overhauls engines and builds QEC (Quick Engine Change) units for C-130s, E-3s and P-3s. At depo level maintenance is where the major aircraft components are inspected, repaired or even changed. Sometimes an aircraft won't see depo for years.

That's your "territory"

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'd say they were cheating. Lying actually.

Why would you say that? When you look at the common components between the "C" and "E" it actually came out to be 71% for the airframe components and they were intentionally designed that way, and I bet the main operator actually had a major role in determining some of this

That's your "territory"

But it points out what is done at the squadron level.

 

[tomo pauk]

Why would you say that? When you look at the common components between the "C" and "E" it actually came out to be 71% for the airframe components and they were intentionally designed that way, and I bet the main operator actually had a major role in determining some of this

I've stated twice what major components are changed from "C" to "E". If the fins the nose of the airframe represent 71% of all the airframe, I wouldn't wrote that. Since it does not, I wrote what I wrote.

Main operator has a curious choice: either Super Bug, or nothing. For some 15 years. So I guess we would not hear any disturbing voice from them. Same choice have Russian, French, UK, German and Italian airforces - so we'd hear nothing but praise for their newest hardware.

But it points out what is done at the squadron level.

I was agreeing with your description of the levels of maintenance

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've stated twice what major components are changed from "C" to "E". If the fins the nose of the airframe represent 71% of all the airframe, I wouldn't wrote that. Since it does not, I wrote what I wrote.

That's if you look at the aircraft visually. The fins and the nose are basically fixed and rarely if not ever changed (unless you're talking about the radome). The components that make the aircraft work is why we're looking at that 71% number. Its like saying your skin makes up 90% of your body.

Main operator has a curious choice: either Super Bug, or nothing. For some 15 years. So I guess we would not hear any disturbing voice from them. Same choice have Russian, French, UK, German and Italian airforces - so we'd hear nothing but praise for their newest hardware.

True, but has their aircraft seen the same amout of flight hours and combat during the same time?

I was agreeing with your description of the levels of maintenance

Ok...

 

[Colin1]

Did find this if it's of any interest

 

[Waynos]

The Super Hornet is virtually an all-new design compared with the earlier F/A-18C. The forward nacelle is relatively unchanged but the rest of the design, and of necessity the structure, is completely new.

The aircraft was 25% bigger than the previous model yet designed with 42% LESS structural components, so the claim that it has '71% commonality by parts weight' and the retention of the F/A-18 type number was really nothing more than politicking to make the aircraft more easily acceptable to congress frollowing the loss of the A-12 and the realistaion that the F-14 had to go.

One way to look at it would be to say the Super Hornet has the same sort of relationship with the F/A-18C that the F-4 Phantom has with the F-3H Demon.

Although I cannot quantify the following assesment myself, and I add the following only as a point of interest having had it said to me SOOO MANY times, an Aerospace engineer of my acquaintance told me that the Super Bug is a collection of fantastic systems shoehorned into a half-witted airframe design with horrible aerodynamics, made that way just to be quick and cheap enough not to be cancelled.

He is Irish though

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Super Hornet is virtually an all-new design compared with the earlier F/A-18C. The forward nacelle is relatively unchanged but the rest of the design, and of necessity the structure, is completely new.

The aircraft was 25% bigger than the previous model yet designed with 42% LESS structural components, so the claim that it has '71% commonality by parts weight' and the retention of the F/A-18 type number was really nothing more than politicking to make the aircraft more easily acceptable to congress frollowing the loss of the A-12 and the realistaion that the F-14 had to go.

Sorry Waynos, facts are facts - as the saying goes, beauty is skin deep but looking beyond the skin reveals a whole bunch of components and systems are are common between the two aircraft and this was conformed by the bean counters when it was decided to put this aircraft into production.

One way to look at it would be to say the Super Hornet has the same sort of relationship with the F/A-18C that the F-4 Phantom has with the F-3H Demon.

Horrible analysis - the F-3H was a step behind the F-4 and was not really a successful aircraft. No one could argue the operational success of both "C" and "E."

Although I cannot quantify the following assesment myself, and I add the following only as a point of interest having had it said to me SOOO MANY times, an Aerospace engineer of my acquaintance told me that the Super Bug is a collection of fantastic systems shoehorned into a half-witted airframe design with horrible aerodynamics, made that way just to be quick and cheap enough not to be cancelled.

He is Irish though

I bet he really knows how efficient the aerodynamic really are.. And I also bet he would of given his left nut to design the relief tube!

 

[Waynos]

The success or otherwise of the F3H has nothing to do with it, I was only talking about the similarity of the process of evolution involved, the F-4 grew out of the F3H (albeit more dramatically) not the actual products themselves.

I'm not denying there is a commonality between the two (F-18 variants) , only that the degree of that commonality was exaggerated, for the reasons I gave. This was a particularly sensitive time (look at the cancellations of the E-8, RAH-66, A-12 etc, Boeing NEEDED to show that this was virtually an 'improvement' to an existing aircraft if they weren't to risk having the whole thing axed in favour of a ' simple' (if inappropriate) SLEP on the F/A-18C.

It is true that looking at the general arrangement drawing above tells you nothing of what lies beneath. However all that outer skin relies on an internal structure. The fact that it is outwardly completely different means that it must also be different internally too. How can you possibly remove 42% of the structural components from a legacy F-18, shove it into an airframe that is 25% bigger and still have 71% commonality (and an airframe that doesn't collapse in a heap when the engines are fired up)? These are all Boeings own figures and they simply do not add up. Unless you look at what Boeing actually say.

That is why, when you read the actual blurb, it does not say '71% common structure', but the rather more obfuscational '71 % commonality by parts weight'. This is because the relativedly heavy items retained are being compared with the much lighter composite structures that the SH introduced. The real level of commonality - component for component - is really about 33-35%, but the newer items are much lighter.

That is a standard inustrial ruse to make something more acceptable than it otherwise would be, the initial brief was to have the SH stand at 90% commonality with the existing model, which was never going to be achievable, if the SH really was going to deliver the capability that the USN needed. Which I believe it does.

As for the aerodynamics argument, like I said, it was not mine, but it does come from an aerodynamiscist, Maybe its time I asked why instead of just going 'yeah, whatever'.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The success or otherwise of the F3H has nothing to do with it, I was only talking about the similarity of the process of evolution involved, the F-4 grew out of the F3H (albeit more dramatically) not the actual products themselves.

Well the same aircraft were still miles apart

I'm not denying there is a commonality between the two (F-18 variants) , only that the degree of that commonality was exaggerated, for the reasons I gave. This was a particularly sensitive time (look at the cancellations of the E-8, RAH-66, A-12 etc, Boeing NEEDED to show that this was virtually an 'improvement' to an existing aircraft if they weren't to risk having the whole thing axed in favour of a ' simple' (if inappropriate) SLEP on the F/A-18C.

It is true that looking at the general arrangement drawing above tells you nothing of what lies beneath. However all that outer skin relies on an internal structure. The fact that it is outwardly completely different means that it must also be different internally too. How can you possibly remove 42% of the structural components from a legacy F-18, shove it into an airframe that is 25% bigger and still have 71% commonality (and an airframe that doesn't collapse in a heap when the engines are fired up)?
These are all Boeings own figures and they simply do not add up. Unless you look at what Boeing actually say.

And I'll bet dollars to donuts that before any contract was signed any and all Boeing propaganda claims were verified by NAVAIR as well as other elements of the DoD. When a contractor comes up with a proposal, there claims have to be substantiated and if they are not, no award is given and this is especially true through out the contract implementation stage - (you seen an example of this as the USAF recently withheld a 600 million dollar plus progress payment from Lockheed on the F-35). In addition to this we have civilian watchdog groups verifying this as well.

That is why, when you read the actual blurb, it does not say '71% common structure', but the rather more obfuscational '71 % commonality by parts weight'. This is because the relativedly heavy items retained are being compared with the much lighter composite structures that the SH introduced. The real level of commonality - component for component - is really about 33-35%, but the newer items are much lighter.

They probably are, but again one has to detach himself from the outward appearance and address the major structural components that are interchangeable. Again, Boeing would not make that claim if there was any chance they could be proven wrong

That is a standard inustrial ruse to make something more acceptable than it otherwise would be, the initial brief was to have the SH stand at 90% commonality with the existing model, which was never going to be achievable, if the SH really was going to deliver the capability that the USN needed. Which I believe it does.

Agree..

As for the aerodynamics argument, like I said, it was not mine, but it does come from an aerodynamiscist, Maybe its time I asked why instead of just going 'yeah, whatever'.

You should have because for being an aerodynamic pig, it flies pretty fast and considering what it does is also pretty fuel efficient.

 

[Waynos]

The fight between the engineers and the bean counters is an eternal one. Obvously Boeing had to make their case very compelling but there are no guarantees that just because the arguments are compelling, they are absolutely true .Boeing simply promoted the most favourable argument. Promoting the type as 'largely brand new' would not have been in their favour, or the USN's favour, at that time . This is not the same thing as lying.

A well known example over here is how, as part of the wider campaign to get the TSR 2 cancelled, the govt was given a very disturbing report on how the TSR 2 wing structure had failed under test, what was left out was that the entire point of the test in question was not to see if it failed, but at what point it would.

That is not to say that Boeing lied about the commonality of the F/A-18E, only that they presented the truthful data in the most favourable way.

And so 71% of the structure by WEIGHT is common, that is correct. But not 71% of the airframe components. So this strand of the discussion may have stemmed from your choice of phrase at that moment, rather than any real difference of opinion, after all "71% common airframe components" is not something that Boeing themselves have ever claimed .

Oh, and I have emailed for clarification on the Aerodynamics question, I'll update this thread with the reply, if it comes.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And so 71% of the structure by WEIGHT is common, that is correct. But not 71% of the airframe components. So this strand of the discussion may have stemmed from your choice of phrase at that moment, rather than any real difference of opinion, after all "71% common airframe components" is not something that Boeing themselves have ever claimed .

I guess the real way to prove this is to attain a consumable parts list (parts and components that would used at the squadron level) of both aircraft. If the list is 71% in common with each other I would say there is no argument.

Oh, and I have emailed for clarification on the Aerodynamics question, I'll update this thread with the reply, if it comes.

Would love to see it...

 

[Waynos]

I'm quite keen myself. Now I'm wondering why I never asked before. I think I just dismissed it.

I'm curious about the definition of 'consumable parts list', this seems different, to my unnacustomed eyes, from an airframe components list?

I have been trawling for info on the Super Hornet since joining this discussion and I beleive I have found the definitive reference that is readily avaialble, and from reading it I can report that not only were you wrong, FBJ, so was I !

The reference in question is an in depth analysis of the entire programme spread over two issues of Flight International from January 1999. There is no need for me to scan these issues as they are readily viewable in full in Flight's online archive at flightglobal.com.

Here are a few quotes to whet your appetite for the article which includes, in part one, the delta canard 'configuration IV' which was favoured for a time until 'affordability' dictated otherwise. For example, this was an eye opener;

"Although externally it is a scaled-up C/D, the
E/F is different internally to previous F/A- 18s.
Structural commonality is only 10%, the E/F
airframe having been redesigned extensively to
reduce weight and cost."

There is also this;

"While the E/F's structural concept is based
on the C/D's, the manufacturing execution has
changed substantially. The focus has been on
reducing parts count to simplify assembly and
save money. "Our philosophy was that we
would combine parts if they didn't move,
weren't of different materials and didn't need to
be removable," Young says.
The result is 42 % fewer parts than the C/D,
with savings in fabrication, tooling and assembly
costs. The E/F has 8,100 parts against the
14,100 in the C/D structure. Parts count in the
wing and tails is more than halved, from 4,100 to
1,800. The nose barrel bulkhead has gone from
90 parts to just one, which is lighter as well as
quicker and cheaper to produce, and similar savings
are repeated throughout the aircraft."

Which means there simply cannot be 71% parts commonality, even by weight, which was my earlier position.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1999/1999 - 0104.html

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm curious about the definition of 'consumable parts list', this seems different, to my unnacustomed eyes, from an airframe components list?

It's basically the same. It's everything and anything that could be ordered to support the aircraft in the field. There will always be some components that the operator will not be able to get for their aircraft (raw forgings and larger airframe assemblies come to mind) and if needed then you're looking at sending the aircraft to depo for major repairs (see my earlier post about the 3 levels of maintenance the US Navy operates to). I'd bet that's where the 71% common parts arguement is made, or at least a good portion of it.

 

[Waynos]

Yes, that makes a lot more sense, that they were talking about consumables. If you have had the chance to read the article I linked to the Super Hornet is shown to have even less actual commonality with the legacy Hornet than I thought.

The 'configuration IV' looks interesting doesn't it? And yet it also looks wrong with the obvious Hornet fuselage and canards that are clearly F-18 tailplanes stuck on the front, the amazing thing is that back in about 1980 I converted an F-18 model kit by doing exactly the same