History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:49 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 4:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Hope you don't mind me posting these here, this chart is my final (for the moment) Google-fu effort of flyaway cost in FY terms, adjusted for inflation, vs v6.2 performance scores.

The curve shape fits quite well if you look at subsequent development of the same type e.g. F-15A vs C, F/A18C vs E, JA-37 vs 37D.
Also at R^2 value of 0.76 that is better than quite a few actual cost v performance curves I'm working on at work where I have actual defined costs :D so I'm not unhappy about this chart!


Attachments:
Cost v perf UK US inf adj final.png
Cost v perf UK US inf adj final.png [ 109.66 KiB | Viewed 938 times ]

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 4:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
This shows performance score / (cost/1000000) where cost has been adjusted for inflation.

All "1k Club" members are highlighted in red.


Attachments:
perf over cost UK US inf adj.png
perf over cost UK US inf adj.png [ 30.79 KiB | Viewed 937 times ]

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 6:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
And now the bombers.


Attachments:
File comment: And now with. Stuart's comments about the B2A sacrificing bombing performance for LO capability (and that effect on cost) are shown in stark relief here.
Cost vs perk UK US B all.png
Cost vs perk UK US B all.png [ 70.17 KiB | Viewed 928 times ]
File comment: All bombers without the B1B and B2A- they skew the results somewhat.
Cost vs perk UK US B trad.png
Cost vs perk UK US B trad.png [ 67.62 KiB | Viewed 928 times ]

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5748
Craiglxviii wrote:
Hope you don't mind me posting these here, this chart is my final (for the moment) Google-fu effort of flyaway cost in FY terms, adjusted for inflation, vs v6.2 performance scores.

The curve shape fits quite well if you look at subsequent development of the same type e.g. F-15A vs C, F/A18C vs E, JA-37 vs 37D.
Also at R^2 value of 0.76 that is better than quite a few actual cost v performance curves I'm working on at work where I have actual defined costs :D so I'm not unhappy about this chart!

I would probably think that it would be better to show this on a log chart, rather than the one given.

Also, because of the extreme variability in the data, try running one curve for the piston planes and a second for the jets. There could be undue influence on the curve shape from either the early or late planes, resulting in misleading conclusions.

Finally, the Mirage IIC is obviously a piece of carp, being extremely expensive for the limited capability offered.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
This is excellent work! I'll try and find time to move the rest of the discussions on this to join this thread.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 9:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Thank you Stuart, that means a lot. I'd be really grateful if you could give me some pointers on publications I could get better cost data from, a lot of these are from Wikipedia believe it or not... I don't mind buying some reference books on this (I'd like them anyway) as I'm finding this of more and more interest. It actually ties in methodology-wise with a big project I'm kicking off at work.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
KDahm wrote:
Craiglxviii wrote:
Hope you don't mind me posting these here, this chart is my final (for the moment) Google-fu effort of flyaway cost in FY terms, adjusted for inflation, vs v6.2 performance scores.

The curve shape fits quite well if you look at subsequent development of the same type e.g. F-15A vs C, F/A18C vs E, JA-37 vs 37D.
Also at R^2 value of 0.76 that is better than quite a few actual cost v performance curves I'm working on at work where I have actual defined costs :D so I'm not unhappy about this chart!

I would probably think that it would be better to show this on a log chart, rather than the one given.

Also, because of the extreme variability in the data, try running one curve for the piston planes and a second for the jets. There could be undue influence on the curve shape from either the early or late planes, resulting in misleading conclusions.

Finally, the Mirage IIC is obviously a piece of carp, being extremely expensive for the limited capability offered.


The Mirage III really did surprise me! Not what I was expecting given its export sales success but there we go. I also have doubts about the Hunter, which seems really cheap for its capability.

I did them as log charts and the result was a pretty dead straight line. I'll run them again as you'ce suggested and repost. Wait one.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Log scale does not work for the breakdowns, it results in a dead straight line that rises at around 25%.

Piston engines and early jets- both show the same trends.

Interesting to see here how much the F4 outperformed its stablemates by a huge margin, and how expensive the Six was in comparison.

Also, why the F-5 wasn't so widely adopted- both the Hunter or the Super Sabre (by the way, cousins, why not "SabER"?) match its performance for ~half the cost.


Attachments:
CvP UK US pist.png
CvP UK US pist.png [ 30.16 KiB | Viewed 909 times ]
CvP UK US early j.png
CvP UK US early j.png [ 33.95 KiB | Viewed 909 times ]

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Here are all the fighters using log scale.


Attachments:
CvP F all log.png
CvP F all log.png [ 35.48 KiB | Viewed 909 times ]

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Last but not least, late jets.


Attachments:
CvP UK US late j.png
CvP UK US late j.png [ 34.52 KiB | Viewed 906 times ]

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
What is really interesting here is that there are two separate parts to the graph; the initial part which is a steep rise upwards which really ends about the Hawk 200. Then, there's a much lower rise that extends up to the F-22 that is almost flat. It's notable that the inflexion point between these two lines is roughly where missiles become the dominant part of a fighter's armament.

So, could we argue that what happened at the inflexion point is where emphasis was transferred from the extremely expensive process of enhancing the performance of a gun armed fighter to improving the performance and lethality of the missiles the fighter carries. That, by the way, suggests that we might be underrating the value of missiles and electronics fits

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Now, I don't know (and I suspect the answer is "no") whether or not the prices I have include weapons. If the cost of a full load of Slammers were included for the F-22 vs a load of Phoenix for the Tomcat... hmm, what cost modeling do I need to do to make this work better, chin stroking time.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Quote:
That, by the way, suggests that we might be underrating the value of missiles and electronics fits
as a function of cost effectiveness...

I'm telling you, that app is calling. Just email a link to it to every Defence Minister, posit yourself as middleman. My cut is 0.5% of sales value, I'm not greedy :)

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 2072
Location: Georgia
Francis Urquhart wrote:
So, could we argue that what happened at the inflexion point is where emphasis was transferred from the extremely expensive process of enhancing the performance of a gun armed fighter to improving the performance and lethality of the missiles the fighter carries. That, by the way, suggests that we might be underrating the value of missiles and electronics fits


<s>But... but... Vietnam showed that missiles are useless and everything is just going to devolve into whites-of-their-eyes dogfights!</s>

_________________
To do much in this life, you must learn much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7252
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
Craiglxviii wrote:
Now, I don't know (and I suspect the answer is "no") whether or not the prices I have include weapons. If the cost of a full load of Slammers were included for the F-22 vs a load of Phoenix for the Tomcat... hmm, what cost modeling do I need to do to make this work better, chin stroking time.

The problem there is that costing weapons as part of life-cycle is really, really hard. Including just one set of weapons doesn't make much sense. After you shoot those off, then you have to pay for reloads. But how many reloads do we include? This isn't really a question with a single answer. Most fighters since 1975 or so haven't fired a single weapon in anger. But if we were to have WWIII, there would be a huge demand. I don't know.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
What I meant was, take the F-22. At 1609 points it costs (say) £72m. But if that 72m is the cost of the aeroplane with no missiles, its effectiveness as a fighter would be 0. So how much does it cost to go from 72m: 0 to 72m + n: 1609? Has to be the cost of one full load out of whatever Stuart included to make the 1609. As the Tiffie (and I think Gripen and Rafale) will be cleared for Meteor etc we cannot assume that "all missiles cost the same"......

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2016 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6964
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
Craiglxviii wrote:
What I meant was, take the F-22. At 1609 points it costs (say) £72m. But if that 72m is the cost of the aeroplane with no missiles, its effectiveness as a fighter would be 0. So how much does it cost to go from 72m: 0 to 72m + n: 1609? Has to be the cost of one full load out of whatever Stuart included to make the 1609. As the Tiffie (and I think Gripen and Rafale) will be cleared for Meteor etc we cannot assume that "all missiles cost the same"......


AIM-120C: $300K to $400K each. Call it $350K, or $2.1M for a full loadout.

AIM-120D: $1.78M each. $10.7M per loadout.

AIM-9X: $600K, $1.2M per loadout.

So, our estimate of lethality is probably based on the AIM-120C plus AIM-9X combo. So, that means $72M plus $2.1M + $1.2M = $75.3M cost for one cocked and locked Raptor. If we assume AIM-120D, then it's $83.9M per loadout.

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 4:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
gtg947h wrote:
Francis Urquhart wrote:
So, could we argue that what happened at the inflexion point is where emphasis was transferred from the extremely expensive process of enhancing the performance of a gun armed fighter to improving the performance and lethality of the missiles the fighter carries. That, by the way, suggests that we might be underrating the value of missiles and electronics fits


<s>But... but... Vietnam showed that missiles are useless and everything is just going to devolve into whites-of-their-eyes dogfights!</s>


In Vietnam, ROE rule YOU!

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 4:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Poohbah wrote:
Craiglxviii wrote:
What I meant was, take the F-22. At 1609 points it costs (say) £72m. But if that 72m is the cost of the aeroplane with no missiles, its effectiveness as a fighter would be 0. So how much does it cost to go from 72m: 0 to 72m + n: 1609? Has to be the cost of one full load out of whatever Stuart included to make the 1609. As the Tiffie (and I think Gripen and Rafale) will be cleared for Meteor etc we cannot assume that "all missiles cost the same"......


AIM-120C: $300K to $400K each. Call it $350K, or $2.1M for a full loadout.

AIM-120D: $1.78M each. $10.7M per loadout.

AIM-9X: $600K, $1.2M per loadout.

So, our estimate of lethality is probably based on the AIM-120C plus AIM-9X combo. So, that means $72M plus $2.1M + $1.2M = $75.3M cost for one cocked and locked Raptor. If we assume AIM-120D, then it's $83.9M per loadout.


Those weapons costs are surprisingly cheap, I was expecting north of $1m/warshot. Interesting that the AIM-9X is twice the cost of a Slammer.

Edit- oops didn't see the -120D cost, that's more like what I was expecting!

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bang for the buck
PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 5:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 2072
Location: Georgia
Craiglxviii wrote:
Poohbah wrote:
Craiglxviii wrote:
What I meant was, take the F-22. At 1609 points it costs (say) £72m. But if that 72m is the cost of the aeroplane with no missiles, its effectiveness as a fighter would be 0. So how much does it cost to go from 72m: 0 to 72m + n: 1609? Has to be the cost of one full load out of whatever Stuart included to make the 1609. As the Tiffie (and I think Gripen and Rafale) will be cleared for Meteor etc we cannot assume that "all missiles cost the same"......


AIM-120C: $300K to $400K each. Call it $350K, or $2.1M for a full loadout.

AIM-120D: $1.78M each. $10.7M per loadout.

AIM-9X: $600K, $1.2M per loadout.

So, our estimate of lethality is probably based on the AIM-120C plus AIM-9X combo. So, that means $72M plus $2.1M + $1.2M = $75.3M cost for one cocked and locked Raptor. If we assume AIM-120D, then it's $83.9M per loadout.


Those weapons costs are surprisingly cheap, I was expecting north of $1m/warshot. Interesting that the AIM-9X is twice the cost of a Slammer.

Edit- oops didn't see the -120D cost, that's more like what I was expecting!

Probably because it's just reached IOC and production is still ramping up, vs. the C model which has been in production for a long time. I suspect that number will be well under a million in a few years as the learning curve kicks in.

Going by this website, it looks like the FY2015 cost is $1.098 million.

_________________
To do much in this life, you must learn much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group