전투기 미국 공군 F-35A의 유지비 비중: 제조사, 공군, 엔진사

[ssn688]

F-35A의 비행시간당 유지비가 33,000불인 상태로는 "F-16을 대체할 통합전투기"로서 너무 부담스럽기 때문에, 25,000불까지 낮춰야 한다는 요구가 드높습니다. 주말에 모는 스포츠카 vs 평일 출퇴근차... 그러다 보니 "새로운 (로우급을 형성할)4세대급 전투기" 얘기가 나오기도 하고, 미 공군이 F-35A의 조달을 1,000대까지 낮출 수도 있다는 얘기도 나옵니다.

2025년까지 25,000불로 낮춘다는 목표를 설정한 록히드마틴은 계속 정비시설을 확충하면서 비용을 낮추려하고 하지만, 공군과 엔진사가 맡는 영역에서도 절감이 이루어져야 목표를 완전히 달성할 수 있다고 밝힙니다. 록히드마틴사가 자기 영역에서 40%(!) 절감을 달성해도 총액은 27,852불이 된다는 겁니다. 나머지 2,852불은 공군이나 엔진사(PW)에서 해야 한다는 거죠. 그러면서 공군의 프로세스에 개선의견을 냅니다만, 정비병이 F-35와 다른 항공기를 겸할 수 있으면 인력을 절감합니다!!! 남의 일이라고 쉽게 얘기하는 느낌이... (먼 산)

(회원전용이지만, 구독자 아닌 무료회원도 볼 수 있는 기사입니다)

How A $2,852 Sum Threatens Lockheed’s F-35A Cost-Saving Plan

......

The $33,000 cost per flight hour—a metric expressed in fiscal 2012 dollar values—for each of the Air Force’s roughly 300

F-35As is motivating a search for alternatives.

......

Unless the F-35A’s hourly operating cost becomes more affordable, the program risks losing hundreds of orders over the long term from the Air Force’s official program of record of 1,763 fighters.

......

But Lockheed’s plan for addressing concerns about the F-35A’s hourly operating costs includes a major limitation. As the airframe supplier, Lockheed directly controls only 39% of the F-35A’s hourly operating cost, a company official says. By contrast, the Air Force controls about 47% of the cost. The F135 engine supplier, Pratt & Whitney, is responsible for the remaining 14%.

In absolute terms, the Air Force’s share of the $33,000 cost per flight hour comes out to $15,510. Lockheed’s share is $12,870, leaving Pratt with $4,620 of the total bill.

......

Since the company’s cost-saving plan applies only to its $12,870 share of the overall hourly cost, a 40% reduction would cut the F-35A’s hourly cost attributable to the airframe by only $5,148, lowering Lockheed’s share of the overall total to $7,722.

Lockheed’s plan would reduce the cost per flight hour of the F-35A to $27,852, which is still $2,852 higher than the company’s commitment.

To hit the $25,000 target by the end of fiscal 2025, Lockheed needs help from the Air Force and Pratt, which account for $20,130 of the $33,000 hourly cost. Fortunately, neither would be required to match Lockheed’s plan to cut its share of the cost by 40% over the next 4.5 years—the Air Force and Pratt would need to reduce their costs by only 14.2% each.

......

Lockheed, for example, has outlined a seemingly straightforward path for the Air Force to achieve a roughly 33% reduction for line maintenance workforce costs: By cross-training maintainers on multiple systems, the Air Force could cut the number assigned to each F-35A to nine from 12. That proposal, however, might require the Air Force to bifurcate a common pool of aircraft maintainers, creating separate training and career pipelines for the F-35A and the rest of the fighter fleet.

By contrast, Lockheed’s plans to achieve cost savings are well understood. Projected fleet growth over the next five years could add between 240 and 300 F-35As, each equipped with the most reliable hardware produced to date to lower overall repair and replacement costs. Second, Lockheed is planning to stand up dozens of parts-repair depots over the next five years. In the dearth of a parts-replacement capability so far, the program has relied on the more expensive replacement option to fix any broken components. That change, along with a steadily rising pool of spares, is expected to reduce the airframer’s share of the cost dramatically, says Bridget Lauderdale, Lockheed’s vice president and general manager for the F-35A.

[백선호]

지금까지는 예비 부품이 없어서 싸게 바꿔 끼우기가
안되고 비싸게 고쳐야만 했군요...

In the dearth of a parts-replacement capability so far, the program has relied on the more expensive replacement option to fix any broken components.