5 ms·

As I understand it, sending one of those planes out costs tens of thousands of dollars each flight (any military personnel or military buffs that can corroborat

by shard 5y ago

As I understand it, sending one of those planes out costs tens of thousands of dollars each flight (any military personnel or military buffs that can corroborate or correct that number?). That might be insignificant from a military budget point of view, but as a taxpayer it does not exactly seem like a good use of money.

craftinator 5y ago
Prior military, didn't fly planes, but worked with pilots and asked lots of questions. Cost would likely be a few thousand just to take off and land, and cost of fuel and pilot pay while they're in the air. Keep in mind though, pilots NEED flight hours to maintain their wings, else they get grounded and have to go through additional simulation training and a bunch of other stuff. We'd often have pilots make up reasons to fly back and forth between other bases, just to get their hours in.
- seriousquestion 5y ago
  What do they do the rest of the time when they're only able to fly a minimum number of hours?
  - Judgmentality 5y ago
    The Air Force, or the Chair Force as it's so affectionately dubbed (by their own members as an inside joke), has the unofficial motto "hurry up and wait!"
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      If you’re not military, it is poor form for you to use that joke. Some jokes are inside jokes, and offensive for others to say. It’s hard to explain, but I wanted to let you know. And yes, hurry up and wait is the first thing I learned in Navy boot camp! I think it’s a military wide ethos.
      - Judgmentality 5y ago
        Well my wife used to be in the Air Force and would constantly make fun of how awful it was. And I really don't feel bad if you're offended by something that's true.
        imwillofficial 5y ago
        Your wife being in doesn’t mean you’re in. I was doing you a favor, you do with that info what you will.
robomartin 5y ago
Likely fake costs. The baseline cost of a military at the ready is massive, whether you use it or not. What often happens is someone with an axe to grind grabs a portion of this baseline cost and assigns it to whatever it is they are hyperventilating about. In reality, taxpayers were going to spend that money anyway. It's a false equivalency; it would not have cost $0 to keep that plane on the ground. If they claim this to be the case they are lying. Simpler terms: You own a trucking company. It costs nearly the same to have a truck parked and ready to roll at a moments' notice. The tank has to be full (or you have to have the money to fill it up when needed), you have to pay the loan, insurance, have an office, receptionist, computers, customer service people, order takes, drivers, mechanics, etc. All at the ready in order for that truck to roll. You would have had to spend and allocate the money whether it rolled or not. If it rolls, then there are some marginal costs that come into play, of course. Not much different with a fighter plane in a hangar. As to the legal matter, that's a different story and one I am not qualified to comment on.
- angry_octet 5y ago
  This is an uninformed and inaccurate take. While the fixed costs of any aircraft are significant, flight time is a definite extra cost. Apart from the obvious cost of the kerosene the aircraft will accrue flight time and fatigue. Every component has a flight time clock, which dictates when it must be serviced and replaced. F-15C are very expensive to operate, $40k per hour would be quite possible. Let me forestall arguments about incidental training. For training to count towards maintaining readiness it must be carefully designed and supervised. No training benefit would have eventuated. If the money 'would have been spent anyway' then it would have been spent for a correctly determined purpose, such as training. Diversion to other purposes is not free.
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    His comment was neither uninformed, nor inaccurate. I used to work in fighter jet training community. The costs to fly a plane, while not zero, are marginal compared to the total cost of ownership of the airframe.
YeBanKo 5y ago
I agree, it's expensive, but they need to fly anyway to maintain their skills, so whether it will be some capture flag combat emulating exercise or "recon" for earthquake damage, I prefer it to be latter, given that it's national guard.

by shard 5y ago

craftinator 5y ago

Prior military, didn't fly planes, but worked with pilots and asked lots of questions. Cost would likely be a few thousand just to take off and land, and cost of fuel and pilot pay while they're in the air. Keep in mind though, pilots NEED flight hours to maintain their wings, else they get grounded and have to go through additional simulation training and a bunch of other stuff. We'd often have pilots make up reasons to fly back and forth between other bases, just to get their hours in.

seriousquestion 5y ago
What do they do the rest of the time when they're only able to fly a minimum number of hours?
- Judgmentality 5y ago
  The Air Force, or the Chair Force as it's so affectionately dubbed (by their own members as an inside joke), has the unofficial motto "hurry up and wait!"
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    If you’re not military, it is poor form for you to use that joke. Some jokes are inside jokes, and offensive for others to say. It’s hard to explain, but I wanted to let you know. And yes, hurry up and wait is the first thing I learned in Navy boot camp! I think it’s a military wide ethos.
    - Judgmentality 5y ago
      Well my wife used to be in the Air Force and would constantly make fun of how awful it was. And I really don't feel bad if you're offended by something that's true.
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        Your wife being in doesn’t mean you’re in. I was doing you a favor, you do with that info what you will.

robomartin 5y ago

Likely fake costs. The baseline cost of a military at the ready is massive, whether you use it or not. What often happens is someone with an axe to grind grabs a portion of this baseline cost and assigns it to whatever it is they are hyperventilating about. In reality, taxpayers were going to spend that money anyway. It's a false equivalency; it would not have cost $0 to keep that plane on the ground. If they claim this to be the case they are lying. Simpler terms: You own a trucking company. It costs nearly the same to have a truck parked and ready to roll at a moments' notice. The tank has to be full (or you have to have the money to fill it up when needed), you have to pay the loan, insurance, have an office, receptionist, computers, customer service people, order takes, drivers, mechanics, etc. All at the ready in order for that truck to roll. You would have had to spend and allocate the money whether it rolled or not. If it rolls, then there are some marginal costs that come into play, of course. Not much different with a fighter plane in a hangar. As to the legal matter, that's a different story and one I am not qualified to comment on.

angry_octet 5y ago
This is an uninformed and inaccurate take. While the fixed costs of any aircraft are significant, flight time is a definite extra cost. Apart from the obvious cost of the kerosene the aircraft will accrue flight time and fatigue. Every component has a flight time clock, which dictates when it must be serviced and replaced. F-15C are very expensive to operate, $40k per hour would be quite possible. Let me forestall arguments about incidental training. For training to count towards maintaining readiness it must be carefully designed and supervised. No training benefit would have eventuated. If the money 'would have been spent anyway' then it would have been spent for a correctly determined purpose, such as training. Diversion to other purposes is not free.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  His comment was neither uninformed, nor inaccurate. I used to work in fighter jet training community. The costs to fly a plane, while not zero, are marginal compared to the total cost of ownership of the airframe.

YeBanKo 5y ago

I agree, it's expensive, but they need to fly anyway to maintain their skills, so whether it will be some capture flag combat emulating exercise or "recon" for earthquake damage, I prefer it to be latter, given that it's national guard.