JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

[Argus Panoptes]

Do head of company must be an accountant to see overhead and profit?.......

Is the respected ACM the head of a company or the leader of an armed service? Our armed forces are very well known not to be run according to commercial principles.

 

[My-Analogous]

Is the respected ACM the head of a company or the leader of an armed service? Our armed forces are very well known not to be run according to commercial principles.

What i mean to say that he is head of organization and he know very well about his organization more then any one and if he said its 1/3 its mean its 1/3.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

What i mean to say that he is head of organization and he know very well about his organization more then any one and if he said its 1/3 its mean its 1/3.

Sir, I believe his figures are correct. I merely wondered as to how he had arrived at those comparative costs, that is all.

 

[BATMAN]

@Argus Panoptes Please, don't bore us with your chit chat on JF-17 thread. Take it to PM.

 

[SQ8]

Is the respected ACM the head of a company or the leader of an armed service? Our armed forces are very well known not to be run according to commercial principles.

The respected ACM does however, have accountants at his disposal in the logistics branch who also follow the same principles of accounting as practiced around the globe.. Just because they say "slect" instead of "select" does not mean they dont know the meaning of the word.

You cannot compare pay scales, but you can compare the cost of more standard commodities such as spares, lubes, etc.
So if you take labor overheads to be different even then there is a certainly large fraction of the cost that is standard for most aircraft(in terms of purchase price , etc). The purchasing of spares, their inventory maintenance, their pipelining costs.. all go as common factors whether its for the USAF or the JASDF or the PAF..At the same time, because its an accounting procedure.. the costs are what you make it out to be. Whether the costs have been taken as Overheads or Activity based or so on.
Usually the general standard is common to most forces is according expenses to cost centre's and then using them to calculate an overall picture for the aircraft. Not much is different in the PAF as accounting is taken quite seriously(especially since it allows many of our armed forces to blow up costs on certain mundane tasks such as a new wall).

 

[My-Analogous]

The respected ACM does however, have accountants at his disposal in the logistics branch who also follow the same principles of accounting as practiced around the globe.. Just because they say "slect" instead of "select" does not mean they dont know the meaning of the word.

You cannot compare pay scales, but you can compare the cost of more standard commodities such as spares, lubes, etc.
So if you take labor overheads to be different even then there is a certainly large fraction of the cost that is standard for most aircraft(in terms of purchase price , etc). The purchasing of spares, their inventory maintenance, their pipelining costs.. all go as common factors whether its for the USAF or the JASDF or the PAF..At the same time, because its an accounting procedure.. the costs are what you make it out to be. Whether the costs have been taken as Overheads or Activity based or so on.
Usually the general standard is common to most forces is according expenses to cost centre's and then using them to calculate an overall picture for the aircraft. Not much is different in the PAF as accounting is taken quite seriously(especially since it allows many of our armed forces to blow up costs on certain mundane tasks such as a new wall).

Thanks for saving my breath.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

The respected ACM does however, have accountants at his disposal in the logistics branch who also follow the same principles of accounting as practiced around the globe.. Just because they say "slect" instead of "select" does not mean they dont know the meaning of the word.

You cannot compare pay scales, but you can compare the cost of more standard commodities such as spares, lubes, etc.
So if you take labor overheads to be different even then there is a certainly large fraction of the cost that is standard for most aircraft(in terms of purchase price , etc). The purchasing of spares, their inventory maintenance, their pipelining costs.. all go as common factors whether its for the USAF or the JASDF or the PAF..At the same time, because its an accounting procedure.. the costs are what you make it out to be. Whether the costs have been taken as Overheads or Activity based or so on.
Usually the general standard is common to most forces is according expenses to cost centre's and then using them to calculate an overall picture for the aircraft. Not much is different in the PAF as accounting is taken quite seriously(especially since it allows many of our armed forces to blow up costs on certain mundane tasks such as a new wall).

Exactly my line of reasoning, which led me to wonder what percentage of the costs is the manpower compared to the other heads you mentioned. That is to ask, what percentage of the flying cost per hour advantage is attributed to the lower manpower costs for PAF, which will likely not hold true for other nations considering buying this jet? After all, if, as you said, "costs are what you make out it to be", then how reliable is this figure quoted by the ACM? Why should it not be regarded as advertising fluff unless a detailed breakdown is available?

 

[SQ8]

Exactly my line of reasoning, which led me to wonder what percentage of the costs is the manpower compared to the other heads you mentioned. That is to ask, what percentage of the flying cost per hour advantage is attributed to the lower manpower costs for PAF, which will likely not hold true for other nations considering buying this jet? After all, if, as you said, "costs are what you make out it to be", then how reliable is this figure quoted by the ACM? Why should it not be regarded as advertising fluff unless a detailed breakdown is available?

You could say the same for any product by a company when its CEO announces it and wait till the figures come out.. claims are not to be proven by the ACM..rather through published figures or requested ones through PAC. That is for interested parties to request.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

You could say the same for any product by a company when its CEO announces it and wait till the figures come out.. claims are not to be proven by the ACM..rather through published figures or requested ones through PAC. That is for interested parties to request.

Of course. Interesting that while you mention that spares, inventory maintenance, and other costs as fuel all go as common factors whether its for the USAF or the JASDF or the PAF, you should also realize that there will not be such a great difference for these costs so as to account adequately for the claim that the JF-17 costs only 1/3rd as much as western jets unless the huge differences in manpower costs are part of the calculation. Any interested parties will get the details, but the public like me should take these claims with a large pinch of salt.

 

[SQ8]

Of course. Interesting that while you mention that spares, inventory maintenance, and other costs as fuel all go as common factors whether its for the USAF or the JASDF or the PAF, you should also realize that there will not be such a great difference for these costs so as to account adequately for the claim that the JF-17 costs only 1/3rd as much as western jets unless the huge differences in manpower costs are part of the calculation. Any interested parties will get the details, but the public like me should take these claims with a large pinch of salt.

Well, we take lots of claims as pinches of salt.. but it has to be done with.. as they say in cricket.. "benefit of doubt to the batsman".

There may very well be such a great difference in costs.. and I fail to see the basis of your skepticism for this. After all, if there are difference in maintenance costs for something like a Honda and Suzuki.. I fail to see why that cannot be the case in an aircraft.

Some reports put the Super Hornet's flying hour costs at $5000 an hour.. which sounds ludicrious unless one looks into the factors that go into it.

How many flying hours per year?
How many personnel maintain it?
How much does the fuel cost in that country?

But a basic rule for COST per flying hour is this.

Parts + Fuel + Modifications
------------------------------- = CPFH
Hours Flown

in more detail . there's this given by SAAB for the Gripen.. now should we take this with a pinch of salt as well.. since how could SAAB take into the fuel prices as equal for all the jets? where did it take the costs.

Yet at the end.. there is this statement.

Owing to the differing methods of calculating aircraft operating cost per flight hour and the large number of interlinked factors that affect such a calculation, IHS Jane’s believes that any flight hour cost figure can only be regarded as indicative and that there is no single correct answer to such a calculation

Hence, the ACM may very well be right in his claim as the JF-17 might cost the PAF that amount compared to the cost of operating a F-16 in Pakistan may be greater. At the same time, the AirChief might be given figures similar to what Janes has been given. Hence, to him those 45000-50000 costs being indicative of both procurement and operating costs would be valid. Perhaps, if figures from the MMRCA evaluation on operating costs come out at some time, they might shed light better as cost for the IAF would still generally be similar in many aspects. Hence, while the pinch of salt is a mandatory intake in such statements... it is not one that should be taken because the ACM said it anyway.. it is because "costs" in accounting terms is the most variable figure on this earth.

 

[alimobin memon]

MIRAGEC14: Argentina podría estar interesada en el caza chino-pakistaní JF-17

News from a Pakistani military blog, reveal Argentian alleged interest in the acquisition of hunting JF-5:
1 PM . Kamra can complete the production of the 42 units by the end of this year.
2. The work in the production of the batch 2 of 50 from the next year should start next year. A contract with China has been signed, but the technical aspects have not been finalized and are still pending of the PAF.
3. Several countries reported that he sent to his pilots to carry out the flight tests.
4. Venezuela is at the forefront in the conduct of negotiations.
5. Argentina is also negotiating.
6. It has been reported that a JF-17 was transferred to Argentina to the test in Argentina.
7. Several other countries are under discussion.
8. Catic is negotiating with the Chinese government to offer their customers low-cost loans for the purchase of airplanes.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

MIRAGEC14: Argentina podría estar interesada en el caza chino-pakistaní JF-17

please translate this article

it is just a news nothing is final yet

but i can tell you those argentinians on their defence forumns are not happy about them buying jft
those fanboys are high
you can ask antibody i saw him there telling them about jft

the article just say their govt is probably thinking of co-producing jft

 

[alimobin memon]

Its difficult for new comer's to advertise and sell their products when there already so many competitors... Insha'llah Someone will buy.

 

[valkyr_96]

it is just a news nothing is final yet

but i can tell you those argentinians on their defence forumns are not happy about them buying jft
those fanboys are high
you can ask antibody i saw him there telling them about jft

the article just say their govt is probably thinking of co-producing jft

post link please

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

post link please

http://interdefensa.argentinaforo.net/t6452p75-fadea-inicia-conversaciones-con-chendgu-aircraft-para-cofabricar-el-fc-1