Author Topic: Retitled: Surface Attack Aircraft (SAA) / Lead-In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) project  (Read 1132967 times)

r3mu511@TMW

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
Where is the (1 - 0.2) coming from? That savings is supposed to be a reduction on the number of fh during OCT, but if you are using the T/A-50 then OCT is still at around 115. Would OCT hours be really less in the T/A 50 vs a Kfir?

as horge pointed out, the 20% (i.e. the "1-0.2" factor) reduction comes from KAI's claim and the graph from Aermacchi's pdf on embedded training systems, so if OCT fh's is normally 120 fh, TA-50 "discounted" fh's would be 96 fh's... assuming the savings claimed are real and not marketing BS :lol:

MOKONG

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
Skills learned at the least cost is the desired endstate.  Flight hour allocation is a function of the capacity of the student to learn concepts and skills based on the system used.

Which would save you money, time, and effort? 

There are two ways to inform a soldier of a target's location, a Graphical Map, or a two page document describing the location of a target.

Some Desired Learning Outcomes that the T-50 may provide:

Weapons systems modeling and familiarization (Gen 4.5 and Gen 5?),  systems management, fighter fundamentals, and acclimatization to a high G environment, and other stuff that make the undies of the fairer sex drop.

Just an opinion.


r3mu511@TMW

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
^ i think the benefits for getting the TA-50 option over the Kfir option would indeed have to come from the "soft" benefits the TA-50 provides because from the numbers perspective, it doesn't add up...

- each TA-50 saves you ~$200K per trainee (assuming 120 fh's for AJT and OCT each, 2/3 AJT on the TA-50, 20% savings in both)

- the TA-50 fh lifespan of 8250 fh's divided by each trainees need for 160 fh's (AJT and OCT inclusive of 20% "savings") gives ~52 trainees per TA-50

- thus each TA-50 saves a total of $200K * 52 = ~$10.4M as compared to the Kfir option

- but each TA-50 costs $25M - $8.3M = $16.7M more than a Kfir

- so you actually end up losing $6.3M per TA-50 (!!!)

so to justify the TA-50 you need to rely on it's "soft" benefits as a configurable LIFT that better matches the avionics symbology of a target 4.5+ gen MRF, as well as it's "soft" benefit of (perhaps) being more forgiving of trainees (i.e. gentler learning curve) and thus lowering washout ratios...


----------


maybe DND/PAF should go with the M-346 instead since it has a 10,000 fh lifespan and a $4K per fh operating cost which if you run through the same formulas (and assume the same 20% AJT/OCT savings) the M-346 gives a savings per trainee of $360K

- the M-346's 10,000 fh lifespan gives ~62 trainees (also assuming the 160 fh's per trainee for "discounted" AJT/OCT fh's)

- so the total savings per M-346 is $360K * 62 = ~$22.3M

- and since the M-346 costs the same as the TA-50, then the M-346 also costs $16.7M more than a Kfir

- so you end up saving $5.6M per M-346 purchased

 :eyes: go M-346!!   .... well except it doesn't "have" an LCA yet  :thumbsdown:
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 07:08:00 AM by r3mu511@TMW »

franning

  • MBAC 21
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Ibong Adarna
Nice thread and I hate to derail it but there's political aspect with all of this.. consider how much the Korean's are helping us with other form of equipment we receive from them. And could the rumor Po Hang class ship has any connection with this?

Back to topic.

Very nice exercise.

Ignatius1@TMW

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
as horge pointed out, the 20% (i.e. the "1-0.2" factor) reduction comes from KAI's claim and the graph from Aermacchi's pdf on embedded training systems, so if OCT fh's is normally 120 fh, TA-50 "discounted" fh's would be 96 fh's... assuming the savings claimed are real and not marketing BS :lol:

I think the savings is due to the transition from the T/A-50 to another MRF. A pilot saves time at the OCT phase because he/she has trained on tasks in the T/A-50 before going into the MRF/OCT. Since the T/A-50 itself IS the OCT aircraft - then the "savings" doesn't really make sense.

If the BJT/AJT/M311 was configured to train on tasks that would be needed for the T/A-50 then the savings would make sense, but if those were configured for the T/A50, why not get the same savings for the Kfir?

r3mu511@TMW

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
^ check out my previous post, even with all the TA-50 savings it stilll loses money per bird compared to the Kfir, so it's probably moot to argue for the TA-50 on just a savings standpoint since even at best case it loses you money

as I put in my previous post, if instead of the TA-50 you go with the M-346 and remove the savings as you request (i.e. no AJT savings as this phase will be done by the M311, no OCT savings as the M-346 is the target "MRF") then you will also lose money for a M-346 compared to a Kfir

so the only way you can actually save money with a LIFT is if you are targeting a diff. MRF (and not getting "stuck" with just the LIFTs) and if you use an M-346

horge

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2634
Just so we're clear, we're comparing Geagle and Kfir as AJT/OCT platforms,
not as air combatants. In such a role, and in layman's terms:

Kfir is cheaper up front to acquire, but its lack of refinements translates
to more fh to complete both AJT and OCT phases, which increases its
lifespan cost. Geagle  is costlier to acquire, but its refinements translate
to 20-25% time saved in AJT and OCT phases.

NOTE: the quote below contains computations that have since been amended
in the original post, after r3mus511 pointed them out. The financed acquisition
cost for Geagle doess not conform to assummptions in VOX I thread, but rather
to a cost indicated in a Koreatimes article (2009). I'm leaving the errors intact
below, so that everyone can see what he's talking about.



Kfir "TC.10" for AJT/OCT
Likewise, that means a minimum of 2-3 Kfir two-seaters to take care
of the 5-6 trainees entering AJT/OCT. Again, we assume the harsher
2-ship scenario which demands potentially 600 annual flight hours of
a designated 2-seat Kfir, and means it will have a
-service life of 13 years
-annual operating cost of perhaps US$2,950,000 (assuming DCPFH = $4900.00)
-financed acquisition cost of US$26,975,000.00
That's a 13-year lifespan-cost (partial) of US$65,325,000
That's up to US$5.025 Million per year (partial) in outlays per bird.


Using T/A-50 instead of Kfir TC.10 in the above scenario
To provide pilots for a putative 24-ship MRF fleet, at a 2:1 pilot
to cockpit ratio, we would similarly need a minimum of 2-3 Geagles,
and in the harsher 2-ship scenario, but gaining the time-savings of
20% touted for LIFT, that means only 160 fh per trainee, or as bad
as 480 hours a year. That means:
-service life of 19.5 years
-annual operating cost of US$2,400,000 (assuming DCPFH = $5,000.00)
-financed acquisition cost of US$29,575,000
That's a 19.5-year lifespan-cost (partial) of US$76,375,000
That's up to US$3.92 Million per year (partial) in outlays per bird

Granted, it's amateur-hour, because a proper comparison would be
from SF-260 all the way to MRF, instead of yanking Kfir out and then
replacing it (in the computations) with Geagle... but from the above:
The T/A-50 comes out cheaper year-for-year, even BEFORE savings
in reduced OCT fh in MRF (which have more-expensive flight hours).



Annual cost of maintaining an AJT/OCT capability is what counts:
If two-seater Kfir need replacing in 13 years, then the cost of
said replacements should be considered, and that's what annual
cost crunching above does.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 08:42:40 PM by horge »
Whatever my comments, I do not have all the facts.
Neither does the military.

r3mu511@TMW

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
^ re. the financed acquisition cost, i thought the TA-50's value is $43,750,000.00 (over a 15 year financing scheme at 5% interest)?

also i think the lifespan yrs of the TA-50 should be 17.2 and not 19.5  since 8250 / 480 = ~17.2 right?

so it looks like the computations would work out as:

Kfir

2/3 AJT + OCT = 2/3 * 120 + 120 = 200 fh per trainee

6 trainees: 200 * 6 = 1200 fh

2 birds: 1200 / 2 = 600 fh per bird

8000 fh lifespan: 8000 / 600 = 13.3 yrs

financed acquisition cost: $26,975,000.00

fh cost: 4900

total cost over 13.3 yrs = 26,975,000 + 4900 * 13.3 * 600 = 66,077,000

per yr cost = 66,077,000 / 13.3 = 4,968,195 = ~$4.97M

TA-50

2/3 AJT + OCT = 0.8 * 2/3 * 120 + 0.8 * 120 = 160 fh per trainee

6 trainees: 160 * 6 = 960 fh

2 birds: 960 / 2 = 480 fh per bird

8250 fh lifespan: 8250 / 480 =  17.2 yrs

financed acquisition cost: $43,750,000.00

fh cost: 5000

total cost over 17.2 yrs = 43,750,000 + 5000 * 17.2 * 480 = 85,030,000

per yr cost = 85,030,000 / 17.2 = 4,943,604 = ~$4.94M

Comparison

so using financed acquisition you save ~$30K per year per bird going with the TA-50

if you use sticker price and not financed price then the costs come out to:

Kfir     3,564,060 = ~$3.56M per year
TA-50 3,853,488 = ~$3.85M per year

no surprise that the TA-50 loses money on sticker price while it saves money on financed price


----------


i made a mistake in my formulas re. the Kfir fh cost, i used 5000 and not 4900, let me redo those computations... ok, so using 4900 cost per fh for the Kfir, the savings of using one TA-50 compared to one Kfir is now $180K per trainee rather than the ~$200K per trainee computed previously with a Kfir 5000 cost per fh.


----------


if going by Ignatius' assertion that the TA-50 savings are not valid since the TA-50 is the "MRF" then the lifespan figures have to be adjusted since we're going to remove the 20% OCT savings

and if we also add in Ignatius' assertion that no part of the AJT phase should fall to the TA-50 or Kfir but instead be given solely to the M311 (?)  then the 2/3 * 20% savings for AJT need to be removed as well

question is if it is valid to remove both these savings?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 10:09:28 PM by r3mu511@TMW »

horge

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2634
i thought the TA-50's value is $43,750,000.00 (over a 15 year financing scheme at 5% interest)?
also i think the lifespan yrs of the TA-50 should be 17.2 and not 19.5  since 8250 / 480 = ~17.2 right?

:P
Well, that proves it... I really DO need to get me a pair of glasses,
Thanks, and I'll be correcting the prior-posted computations, and
then ask adroth for another ban (two weeks left of meds for me).
Just adjust your Geagle SL to 8334 fh and you're solid.


Quote
so using financed acquisition you save ~$30K per year per bird going with the TA-50

Sounds about right.


Quote
if going by Ignatius' assertion that the TA-50 savings are not valid since the TA-50 is the "MRF" then the lifespan figures have to be adjusted as well since we're going to remove the 20% OCT savings

and if we also add in Ignatius' assertion that no part of the AJT phase should fall to the TA-50 or Kfir then but instead be given solely to the M311 (???)  then the 2/3 * 20% savings for AJT need to be removed as well

question is if it is valid to remove both these savings?

The M-311 still has a 17-odd% savings applicable to AJT, per Aermacchi's
graph, but my position is that M-311 just CANNOT accomplish all of AJT,
as far as I understand the typical lesson-modules to be.

I addressed the issue of "OCT" remaining as a necessary block of training
time even if the AJT and the "MRF" are the same type of aircraft. The same
advancements that allow a LIFT to do AJT in less time apply to "OCT", and
whether the AJT is the same aircraft as the frontline MRF does not reduce
the need to run most of the modules contained in OCT: Going from Geagle to
Geagle should mean less time spent than going from Kfir to Kfir. 20-25%
less, according to manufacturers.
Whatever my comments, I do not have all the facts.
Neither does the military.

Ignatius1@TMW

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
Just so we're clear, we're comparing Geagle and Kfir as AJT/OCT platforms,
not as air combatants.
Yup.

The Kfir model ends up with SF260>>M311>>Kfir>>MRF. My previous posts were fixated on going after the 24 MRF capability.




The M-311 still has a 17-odd% savings applicable to AJT, per Aermacchi's
graph, but my position is that M-311 just CANNOT accomplish all of AJT,
as far as I understand the typical lesson-modules to be.
It is indeed a poor AJT because it can't really get into the flight regime that MRFs operate in. Of particular importance is the ability to use thrust - the M311 just doesn't have it. This is where the risk is assumed when using this bird as the "AJT."


I addressed the issue of "OCT" remaining as a necessary block of training
time even if the AJT and the "MRF" are the same type of aircraft. The same
advancements that allow a LIFT to do AJT in less time apply to "OCT", and
whether the AJT is the same aircraft as the frontline MRF does not reduce
the need to run most of the modules contained in OCT
: Going from Geagle to
Geagle should mean less time spent than going from Kfir to Kfir. 20-25%

less, according to manufacturers.

I'm not getting it.

If AJT is the same as the MRF, shouldn't it reduce the course load at OCT because a lot of the modules will be covered during AJT phase (switchtology is a good candidate for this)? That's why it makes sense that GEagle(AJT) to Geagle takes less time than GEagle to Kfir (or other MRF).

r3mu511@TMW

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
question on the financing for LIFTs/Kfirs/MRFs: with the modernization and Malampaya funds now present will financing still be used to acquire the birds? because if not then this changes the cost comparison significantly since it'll be based on sticker prices and not on financed prices

Ignatius1@TMW

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
question on the financing for LIFTs/Kfirs/MRFs: with the modernization and Malampaya funds now present will financing still be used to acquire the birds? because if not then this changes the cost comparison significantly since it'll be based on sticker prices and not on financed prices

I think it doesn't matter whether it is "sticker" or "financed" cost because the comparison includes the life of the entire program.

horge

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2634
If AJT is the same as the MRF, shouldn't it reduce the course load at OCT because a lot of the modules will be covered during AJT phase (switchtology is a good candidate for this)? That's why it makes sense that GEagle(AJT) to Geagle takes less time than GEagle to Kfir (or other MRF).

We've agreed a LIFT makes OCT cheaper by assuming some of the latter's "course load".
What I've been saying the past several posts is that it also claims to reduce the absolute
time spent in the air, through onboard, inflight simulators.

With a Kfir two seater, you go up with a certain loadout and train with it... or worse, you
have to launch with 1-3 other fuel-guzzling Kfir in order to train even basic multiship.

With Master or (to a lesser extent) Geagle, you don't have to land and switch out kit to
run a totally different module. Simulators take care of that, and even multiship training.
That is time saved in "OCT" done on a LIFT, whether the MRF is also the AJT/LIFT or not.
Whatever my comments, I do not have all the facts.
Neither does the military.

Ignatius1@TMW

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
We've agreed a LIFT makes OCT cheaper by assuming some of the latter's "course load".
What I've been saying the past several posts is that it also claims to reduce the absolute
time spent in the air, through onboard, inflight simulators.

With a Kfir two seater, you go up with a certain loadout and train with it... or worse, you
have to launch with 1-3 other fuel-guzzling Kfir in order to train even basic multiship.

With Master or (to a lesser extent) Geagle, you don't have to land and switch out kit to
run a totally different module. Simulators take care of that, and even multiship training.
That is time saved in "OCT" done on a LIFT, whether the MRF is also the AJT/LIFT or not.


That's my understanding of the savings as well, I just thought the other statement I quoted was pointing somewhere else.

Now, about not having to land to run a different module, that doesn't include multiship training right? I wonder what the cost is of Kfir simulator support...

horge

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2634
I'm not aware of comparable inflight-simulation capabilities offered for Kfir.
The math thus far (corrected with your help and r3mus') suggests:

1. Going with SF-260 --> M-311 --> Kfir --> Kfir offers no cost advantage
over SF-260 --> M-311 --> Geagle --> Geagle. What we DO get with the
Kfir route is a superior interim fighter capability over Geagle.

2. If we assume a superior (non-Kfir) MRF is in the pipeline, we definitely
save money in the form of shortened OCT hours in said MRF, if we go the
Geagle route. (If we were to go with Master, the savings would IMO be
much more substantial, but the Master can't even show up for the dance:
despite its clear potential for it, it hasn't been aggressively marketed nor
apparently developed as a combat aircraft.)



@ r3mus
I finally traced down the reason why I earlier quoted a US$29,575,000
financed acquisition cost for the Geagle. The LIFT cost in KoreaTimes
seems to be US$16.9 Million (2009):

flyaway cost is set at 20 billion won to 25 billion won ($13.5 - $16.9 million),
while the M-346 costs 18 billion won to 20 billion won.

If we want to be REALLY conservative, we can't use the alleged Indonesian
buy (which can seem to suggest a US$25 Million price, belatedly dovetailing
with what was earlier guesstimated in VOX I) because nothing is signed yet,
and also because the alleged contract price includes items other than the
aircraft
. We did accept KAI's claim on delivery times if Indonesians were to
push ahead with the deal.

Anyway, with either the VOX I or the KoreaTimes cost assumptions, Geagle
comes out cheaper per year ("to buy and to fly") than Kfir, as an AJT.



« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 08:35:35 PM by horge »
Whatever my comments, I do not have all the facts.
Neither does the military.