Why is Military Gear so Over Priced and Unreliable

[pjw4118]

Mr Orions post on the Fiji Cyclone Relief and the servicing times for helicopters got me thinking. If my Holden needed a spell after 25 hours thats only six trips on the Auckland motorways at rush hour , and if the Buick needed a full service after a run to Wellington it would be junked. Why does aviataion and especially military gear need so much attention ? If a Toyota didnt last three years without any care no body would buy them. So is the aviation/military thing just a chance to make mega dollars ? Theres $25 nuts and $50 bolts , checked I am sure , but better than a Mazda MRX , I dont think so.

Then theres the selection of designs for Naval ships ( for the Monday to Friday Baltic) our planners leapt on them and redesign them into something even less suitable . Lets ignore the really capable and long range US Coast Guard surplus ships tied up in Seattle. Oh No the last one gave us 30 years of service. Of course the Army are great at picking armoured vehicles that arent and rifles that are not lethal to a fly in bush 200m away.

So lets buy something that we can tear all of the comms out of and replace with short range Pommie gear.Or build glass cockpits so that airlines will benefit when we move on. They dont make a plane fly , motors and wings do and I bet there are more "dial" planes flying now than ever before while most stil rely upon lift.. Its a little like information overload but the military industries profit enormously. If I wanted to plant a little friendly incenduary in my mate Phils back yard , I am quite happy with the accuracy of a Navman . Sure it may take out his roses rather thean his Cheese cake but the effect will still be riveting. I yarned with a Tornado pilot a few years ago after Libya and he was concerned his $1 Million missles went clean through the Hi Lux with 50 cal mounting and it kept going." A cannon pack for straFfing cost another $ 5 million so we shot missiles at them." I dont think ISIS have many missiles or glass cockpits , but they own a fair bit of ground.Like wise the Army scout cars, they are parade ground only , no Pacific jungle for them as they are quite incapable , perhaps a Tobruk desert rather than a Guadacanal appearnce for them.

Civil Aviation seems less prone to these wasteful systems . Buy a plane use it , scrap or sell it . Pan Am used to keep aircraft until the oil recycling truck was a permanent feature on the apron . if a two engined jet can now fly to South America non stop , where do they do the check ? Or an engine change.

So while the auto inductry has come into modern times where a valve grind isnt needed every 20K miles or less ,the aviation industry are slow and the military buyers even slower stuck in a time warp of castor oil , scarves and we know best. They dont.. Years ago we were invited to quote for Army tucker , the canned tuna could be any muck so long as the tin was in in camo green , priorities !! So our transport replacement will be hugely expensive , needing masses of mods and still wont do ,after a five year intro to service , any better than a Herc.. Guys just go and buy a pile of near new junk , dont modify it , just use and throw it away . No comments to this rant are expected.

[Deleted]

Just on the 25 hour servicings, its mostly just inspections. They are pretty reliable helicopters, there has been more then one occasion where we have had the entire fleet serviceable at once. Alot of the flight time based servicing are being pushed out, so the 25 hour will become a 50 hour and so on. Just remember a helicopter, and fixed wing aircraft, endures alot more stresses and forces then a land based vehicle, and therefore naturally require more attention. It's alot of preventative maintenance, unfortunately we can't park on a cloud if the s*** hits the fan. Also rnzaf aircraft are maintained to a pretty high standard compared to alot of other outfits. But I agree, defence gear can be ludicrously expensive at times.

[Peter Lewis]

I recall being amazed when I heard that the new RNZAF helicopters (and the new Beech trainers) are taking so many months (and possibly years) to be declared fully operational.
Seems to be dammably inefficient to me.

When ANZ buys new Dreamliners, they are operational and earning their keep within days of their arrival. No commercial firm could afford to have a multi-million dollar asset being 'prepared for service' for such an extreme length of time.

Having said that, I am aware of the fundemental difference between commercial use and military use:
An airline aims to keep its aircraft in the air for as many hours of the day as possible. Every hour on the ground is an hour not earning, and modern airliners typically clock up 60,000 hours or so during their flying life.
The military aim to minimise their flying hours. Every hour costs money and wears out the equipment, so operational aircraft may retire with just a few hundred hours on the clock.

For GA aircraft, the 100 hour check is normally just filters and fluid.

[pjw4118]

Like you Peter , I look at the commercial side of aviation and they rarely need to park in clouds even on the new South American routes, and like you said , they are flying from day one and doing the job. Maybe the horrendous cost of military hardware relects the huge development costs ,but if we arent buying the secret technology we shouldnt be charged. I think that the excitement of new glamorous toys gets in the way of practicality . So buy up big at the supermarkets found at Davis Monthan , Seattle and China. Half the life but a quarter of the price.

[thelensofhistory]

 I think the answer lies in the NZDF lack of wartime experience. By wartime experience I mean more like WW2 than post war conflicts like Vietnam and Afghanistan. Since the majority of people in positions of power have deluded themselves that another global conflict can't take place the demands of wartime conditions (min maintenance and high operational hours) are no longer factored into contingency planning or acquisitions of new equipment.

The NZDF senior commanders over the years must share of the blame. There wasn't anywhere sufficient protest when the RNZAF Air Strike Capabilities was disbanded or the RNZN was turned into a coast guard type force. The Army commanders who enjoyed being the center of Defence Policy won a pyrrhic victory. In reality the army doesn't leave our shores if a hostile power is in control of the sea lanes and airways in the South Pacific. 

All I can say is that I am totally stumped by just how stupid successive governments have been over the past 30 years or so when it comes to a lack of strategic thinking. A terrible price will be paid for such colossal blunders.        

[Dave Homewood]

I wonder, the No. 40 Squadron Boeing 757's and No. 42 Squadron Beech King Airs were built to civilian specs. Does that make them any cheaper in terms of spares and servicing costs than the other types currently in service that were all built as military spec aircraft? Or are they in fact dearer as all civilian parts need to have military certification before they can be used?

Regarding your last comment Peter Wheeler, back in the late 1970's and early 1980's the RNZAF did go for the bargains, ex-civil airline Boeing 727's, ex-civil Cessna Golden Eagles, ex-RAF service Andovers, ex-RAN Skyhawks - and all those types provided great service and what I'd imagine was value for money at the time. Now it seems to be policy to only look at new build military aircraft types, or refurbishing existing airframes with modern and expensive gear.

[baronbeeza]

I have been involved in aviation engineering for more than a few decades. I have worked across the board, military, airline, 3rd level and GA. Some of this in more than one country, indeed I have done all those in Aussie as well and been close in a few other countries.
Sometimes we have worked on the exact same aircraft or even very similar roles and the military would really struggle to be competitive. Compared to say Coastwatch where just two or three of us would work on four types during our shift. We were rated from Islander through PT6 and Dash 8 and BAe 146.
It would be comparable to say a Sergeant just getting on and doing it. No supervising, no instructing, no sport, no supernumerary job, no courses, no parades, no photos.
The RNZAF would look sick compared to a well set-up operation doing the job. The truth is though that the military is made up primarily of young, keen and motivated members who are for the most part inexperienced on the equipment and role. They often don't have the background, experience or length of service in that particular job.
You then factor in the strict and demanding maintenance schedules and procedures and of course there will be a poor availability rate.

Ex-military types working on military type aircraft at places like Lokichogio could be much more efficient and flexible. You wouldn't see aircraft sitting about in places like that.
Those guys are there because they want to be as well. ie it is their choice of posting..

[30sqnatc]

pjw4118,

So many unsupported generalizations in your emails its hard to know where to start. You mention the huge development costs and earlier the super reliable Toyotas. A search on internet I found the figure of Toyota Corolla produced = 22.65 million units. Great cars, i've owned two. Quite a few cars to spread out the development costs and work out all the bugs. The internet tells me a standard Toyota car consists of around 30,000 parts down to nuts and bolts.

Compare this for instance with our armys Light Armoured Vehicles made by GDLS-C. Total production of the LAVIII & Stryker = 5265. Around 250,000 parts if we include nuts and bolts. Much of the automotive side uses commercial parts like the engine and transmission but the weapons and electronics are where the expense comes to develop and maintain it for the typical 50-30 years Army will operate a vehicle. Even the great Toyotas don't last that long.