I saw this in the digital Popular Mechanics magazine. I thought some folks in this forum might be interested in seeing it. Enjoy
We could've used biplanes in Afghanistan and the result would've been the same.Still. Not a bad comparison as to why something might be more feasible for a mission than something else.
Magazines, newspapers and the Tv [ most everything ] should be not considered 100% fact , just entertainment. That being said aircraft is a Latin word for expensive,The most outstanding number there is the super cobra costs 4x the apache to fly?
Why would a lighter helicopter cost 4x as much to fly? 4x is a big difference? Its not 1.5 or double......
It looks like may be typos or just completely wrong.The most outstanding number there is the super cobra costs 4x the apache to fly?
Why would a lighter helicopter cost 4x as much to fly? 4x is a big difference? Its not 1.5 or double......
I used to pay for test flights in another life long ago and currently manage sustainment of an older aircraft.The derivation of those estimates is more interesting than the final number. How do they account for maintenance costs? Does it include parts and labor? Airframe life amortization? Support, like basing, ramp space, hangar requirements? Pilot cost?
I would argue exactly the same, piolet is on payroll either way. Contracts to purchase so much jet fuel a year. Ordinance being already purchased whether it's used or sets on a shelf until it degrades.I would have guessed lower to be honest. But I think the more interesting number (and impossible to predict) is the cost of not flying them.
I would argue exactly the same, piolet is on payroll either way. Contracts to purchase so much jet fuel a year. Ordinance being already purchased whether it's used or sets on a shelf until it degrades.
Also these flights cost nothing compared to the size of the miliary budget, doubtful it even shows as a rounding error when subtracted from the National Defense Authorization Act.
Sounds like you work for the defense industryBut I think the more interesting number (and impossible to predict) is the cost of not flying them.
What ? Specify less fuel in the contracts. The weaponry is a different matter... If needed, sure they can "order" more but it might take a while to get.Contracts to purchase so much jet fuel a year.
Probably has a minimum purchase requirement. "We can always buy more, but we must buy at least this much" type of contract.Sounds like you work for the defense industry
What ? Specify less fuel in the contracts. The weaponry is a different matter... If needed, sure they can "order" more but it might take a while to get.