Metrics to Compare Aircraft Operating and Support Costs in the Department of Defense

Abstract

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr1178Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2015 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark.iii PrefaceThis report emanates from a RAND project titled "Developing a Consistent Definition of Cost per Flying Hour for Use Throughout the Department of Defense." The objective of this research project was to assist the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness (OASD [L&MR]) in developing a consistent definition of aircraft operating and support (O&S) cost per flying hour that can be used across different aircraft platforms in the Department of Defense (DoD). As the project evolved, the research team also examined the possibility of alternative metrics that high-level DoD decisionmakers can use to compare the O&S costs of different aircraft.This research should be of interest to DoD personnel involved with weapon-system acquisition and O&S cost issues. It was sponsored by OASD (L&MR) and conducted within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.For more information on the RAND Acquisition and Technology Policy Center, see http://www.rand.org/nsrd/ndri/centers/atp.html or contact the director (contact information is provided on the web page). CPFH is widely used by the military services for different purposes. One common usage is for the flying-hour programs (FHPs) used by the services to budget resources to achieve aircrew proficiency. The FHPs use a CPFH defined by DoD guidance that is intended to include only costs that vary with flying hours. FHP decisionmakers want to assess the budgetary impacts that incremental changes in flying-h...

The Development of an Ordinary Least Squares Parametric Model to Estimate the Cost Per Flying Hour of ‘Unknown’ Aircraft Types and a Comparative Application †

“…At the present environment of decreasing defence budgets, obtaining the right balance among the components of force structure, modernization, readiness and sustainability of an Air Force is extremely challenging and requires careful analysis of the cost data. Cost Per Flying Hour (CPFH) is the main metric that many Air Forces are using to develop operating and support budgets and is defined as [1]:…”

“…Total O&S Costs Total Flying Hours (1) • The proportional CPFH model works: When nothing changes in the way an aircraft fleet flies (and rests) from one period to the next. It is then perfectly reasonable to use flying hours as a predictor for removal-causing failures.…”

“…In other words, by when the fleets are at their maximum size. This is because the ramp-up, steady-state and ramp-down phases tend to affect aircraft fleet cost [1]. • Inflation predictions, which are very difficult to estimate [13,14].…”

“…The aircraft sample has reached maturity in terms of maximum fleet numbers and this is considered a very crucial condition for sound cost estimates, especially in case of comparing CPFH of different aircraft types [1]. Most of the aircraft sample types are legacy ones with stabilized CPFH, with the newest type (F-16C/D Block 52+Adv) approaching already ten years of operational life within the HAF.…”

“…The analysis of fleet data during the Operation Desert Storm and the operations at Kosovo [4,5] suggests that the CPFH proportional model fails when a fleet of aircraft significantly changes its flight behaviour from one time interval to the next (wartime surge for example). Furthermore, Boito et al [1] suggest that the cost of fleets should be compared using stable annual flying hours required for crew proficiency, excluding flying hours for contingency operations. Of course, as many other NATO Air Forces, HAF actively conducts and participates in large scale military exercises within the country and abroad and there might be occasions in which the utilization rates would fluctuate but overall, they are considered as stable on an annual basis.…”