This paper analyses various very recent figures and statements given by MoD/Parliamentary agencies concerning Land-Based Air operations over Libya.  These figures which compare well with those presented in the PTT paper, “Air Power Projection Options”

The Compelling Cost of Land-Based Air Operations over Libya

i.            This paper analyses various very recent figures and statements given by MoD/Parliamentary agencies concerning Land-Based Air operations over Libya.  These figures which compare well with those presented in the PTT paper, “Air Power Projection Options” are then used to update earlier estimates by the author.

ii.            The paper then provides a comparison between overall Land-Based Air costs of Operation Ellamy with those costs that would be realised if Sea-Based Air had been deployed instead.

iii.            Figure 1, below, reveals demonstrative cost differentials.

 

The Relevant Briefs/Updates.

 

NATO Rolling Script Libya Brief 27 June, as at 17:30hrs

1.            “Since the beginning of the NATO operation (31 March 2011) a total of 12,745 sorties, including 4,804 strike sorties have been conducted. We have damaged or destroyed more than 2,400 legitimate military targets. This includes around one hundred command and control sites – which Qadhafi used to organize attacks on civilians, several hundred ammunition stores, tanks, armoured personnel carriers and rocket launchers which were used indiscriminately against his own people.”

2.            This indicates that:

a)    Damage or destruction of legitimate military targets has been achieved only once for every five sorties flown.

b)   Only 50% of the strike sorties flown have resulted in the successful release of weapons against targets.

c)    Two thirds of missions flown (7941) have been non-strike sorties.

 

Op Ellamy media Updates DMC-Ops PR – 25-28 June

3.            ” Throughout all these operations, NATO tanker and surveillance assets, including RAF VC10, Sentry and Sentinel aircraft, as ever provided essential support.”

“UK forces currently deployed on this operation include:

a) RAF Tornado and Typhoon aircraft based at Gioia del Colle in Italy.

b) RAF Sentry and Sentinel surveillance aircraft, based in Sicily and Cyprus.

c) RAF VC10 and Tristar tankers, based in Sicily, Cyprus and the UK.

RAF air transport aircraft provide extensive logistic support to the deployed bases in Italy, Sicily and the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus.”

4.            These statements would appear to suggest that the 7941 non-strike sorties were principally air to air tanking and logistic support sorties, indicating the huge reliance placed on these resources in order to enable land-based fighter attack missions.  The costs in terms of fuel and airframe hours for this “supporting cast”, none of which is essential for sea-based air operations, has not been revealed by Ministry of Defence sources and expectedly will not have been disclosed to Ministers or the Treasury.  (Hence, the apparent under-estimates in cost that the Secretary of State and others have publicized.)

Libya update 24 June:

5.            “Typhoon has performed extremely well, complementing the Tornado in what is a very effective ground attack partnership.  The Typhoons alone have flown the equivalent of 24 times around the world* in this operation so far.”

6.            *This equates to a distance of 576,000 miles or 1,152 hours flight time at 500 miles an hour. At a fuel consumption of 1250 gallons per hour, this equates to 1,440,000 gallons at a cost of £5,760,000.  Over three months, this equates to £1,920,000 per month for Typhoon alone which calls into question the MoD/RAF figure given for aviation fuel consumption per month for ALL land-based RAF aircraft supporting Libya (£1.2 million per month)[1].  This amount of fuel would have provided for more than 1,100 carrier-borne Harrier attack missions – which is more than twice the number of effective attack missions flown by Tornado and Typhoon to date[2].

7.            1,152 hours flight time equates to 330 aircraft missions of 3 hours 30 minutes, indicating that, on average, the Typhoon has flown 110 aircraft missions per month over Libya – or 28 missions per week. Please see Annex A for the modified listing of the overall “Cost Of Land-Based Air Operations over Libya”.

Discussion.

8.            According to NATO/MoD UK releases, attack aircraft flying ground attack missions from land bases have only released weapons against prescribed targets on less than 50% of those missions.  It is assumed that UK Land-Based Air attack aircraft are no exception.

Attributable Typhoon costs.

9.            The cost per flying hour of the Typhoon aircraft has been stated in parliament as £70,000 per hour[3]. With 1152 hours flown over Libya, this equates to £80,640,000 for 3 months. (If aviation fuel cost is not included in this figure given to Parliament, the total figure for Typhoon hours flown over Libya would be nearly £86,400,000 – and this does not take into account significant air to air refuelling and logistic support costs.)

 

10.            Contrary to what one would expect when looking at such costs, the Typhoon’s role in Libya is very limited.  There is no air threat, the aircraft has no air to ground surveillance or targeting capability and is only capable of delivering Paveway Mk II laser guided bombs which do not have GPS precision guided capability (thereby restricting target options to those that do not have a risk of collateral damage).

Question.

11.            Why is the limited capability Typhoon being operated over Libya at all and at such huge expense (more than £80 million in three months) when we are told by MoD/RAF that the Tornado GR4 is such a capable and reliable Close Air Support vehicle – with a much lower cost per airframe hour?

Suspected Answer.

12.            There is probably more than one answer:

a)    There are not enough serviceable Tornado aircraft to do the job properly.

b)   The presence of Typhoon in the Libyan Theatre is a Public Relations exercise by the Royal Air Force to attempt to provide some justification for the existence of this very expensive fighter aircraft.

Question.

13.            Why do at least 50% of Typhoon (and Tornado) attack sorties result in no weapons being deployed against the target?

Answer.

14.            This is probably the direct result of the 24 hour delay in responding to Close Air Support requests (atrocious tasking procedures) as well as the long transit time from take-off to being over the desired target area.

Attributable Tornado costs.

15.            The cost per flying hour of the Typhoon aircraft has been stated in parliament as £35,000 per hour.  With the Typhoon playing a supporting role to the Tornado GR4 and with 12 Tornado aircraft deployed to Italy (as opposed to 6 Typhoon aircraft), it is not unreasonable to assume that Tornado will have conducted twice as many strike missions in the three months; that is to say, 56 per week or 220 per month.  This equates to £80,640,000 in airframe costs and £12,480,000 in fuel costs – not including air to air refuelling aircraft costs.  Annex A has been amended accordingly.

 

If Sea-Based Air had been Programmed against the Same Number of Targets.

Attributable Apache costs.

16.            For each mission sortie, the Apache will fly for one hour as opposed to 3.5 hours for Typhoon/Tornado.  The cost per flying hour of the Apache aircraft is estimated at £15,000 per hour.  Being close to the scene of action and much more responsive to urgent close air support requests, it is likely that the Apache attack helicopter would be able to strike its chosen target successfully on each mission.  That is to say, 50% of Apache attack sorties would not be wasted as with Tornado/Typhoon.

17.            Attributable Apache airframe costs for three months are estimated to be £2.73 million plus £0.364 million in fuel costs.  See Annex B for more details.

Attributable Harrier costs.

18.            For each mission sortie the Harrier will fly for one hour as opposed to 3.5 hours for Land-Based Air.  The cost per flying hour of the Harrier aircraft has been stated in parliament as £37,000 per hour (this figure is strongly contested by operators as being far too high).  Being close to the scene of action and much more responsive to urgent close air support requests, it is likely that the Harrier would be able to strike the chosen target successfully on each mission.  That is to say, 50% of Harrier attack sorties would not be wasted as with Tornado/Typhoon.

19.            Attributable Harrier airframe costs for three months are calculated as £13.47 million plus £2.09 million in fuel costs.  See Annex B for more details.

 

Comparison: Overall Land-Based Air Costs versus Overall Sea-Based Air Costs.

20.            The revised overall cost of both options as given at Annex A and Annex B is given in figure 2 below:

Conclusions.

21.            The Land-Based Air Support of No Fly Zone operations over Libya is approximately 6 times more expensive than the equivalent Sea Based Air Support would have been for the same weapons effect.

22.            For offshore operations where Land-Based Air is positioned more than 600 miles from the target area, the differential in cost will logically increase exponentially.

23.            In this financially constrained climate, our political masters should recognise this fact and ensure that Sea Based Air is properly funded in the future – at direct cost to Land-Based Air funding, if necessary.

24.       Dr Fox’s suggestion that support for the Harrier is based on sentiment is demonstrably wrong.

Annex A.

Cost of Land-Based Air Operations – Libya – Includes the following:
Close Air Support Aircraft Missions per Week (Estimate)
	No.	Fuel Cost	Airframe cost*	Weapons Cost**	Sub Total	6 months
Tornado	56	£960,000	£6,860,000	£4,000,000	£11,820,000	£307,320,000
Typhoon	28	£480,000	£7,350,000	£2,000,000	£9,830,000	£255,580,000
* See Note 2, below, for calculation basis.
** MoD statement gives the cost of weapons delivered per week to be £6 million.
Air to Air Refuelling Tanker Missions per Week (Estimate)
	No.	Fuel Cost	Airframe cost	Weapons Cost	Sub Total	6 months
	20	£300,000	£1,800,000	£0	£2,100,000	£54,600,000
Sentinel R1 Aircraft Missions per Week (Estimate)*
	No.	Fuel Cost	Airframe cost	Weapons Cost	Sub Total	6 months
	8	£120,000	£1,200,000	£0	£1,320,000	£34,320,000
AWACS Aircraft Missions per Week (Estimate)
	No.	Fuel Cost	Airframe cost	Weapons Cost	Sub Total	6 months
	8	£120,000	£1,600,000	£0	£1,720,000	£44,720,000
			Sub- Total for 6 months			£696,540,000
Accommodation and Allowances per Week (Estimate ***)
		No. Personnel		Accommodation	Sub Total	6 Months
Gioia Dell Colle *		550+		£250,000	£250,000	£6,500,000
Trapani		150		£75,000	£75,000	£1,950,000
Naples		50		£15,000	£15,000	£390,000
Poggia Renatico		50		£35,000	£35,000	£910,000
Akrotiri **		400		£40,000	£40,000	£1,040,000
Longer Separation Allowance					£150,000	£3,900,000
Local Overseas Allowance					£12,000	£312,000
* MOD, MA, 15 June 11:  “The average monthly cost of all UK personnel at Gioia dell Colle is around £1m.”
** Akrotiri already has an RAF personnel establishment in excess of 1500 to support aircraft operating through there or from there (AAR tankers, Sentinel, AWACS and logistic support aircraft). A further 100 personnel have been deployed for Operation Ellamy (MA, 14 June 11) – Ellamy costs should therefore include a proportion of standing personnel. Only this will give a reliable overall cost estimate.
*** Minister for Armed Forces costs in Parliamentary answer to Jim Murphy, MP. (Hansard/Commons/bydate/20110614/writtenanswers/part007).
			Sub- Total for 6 months			£15,002,000
Logistic Supply Air from UK – Materials, Spares, Ordnance (Estimate)
	No. Return Flights	Fuel Cost	Airframe cost		Sub Total	6 months
	14	£350,000	£2,400,000		£2,750,000	£71,500,000
Logistic Supply Land from UK (Estimate)
					Per Week	6 months
					£50,000	£1,300,000
			Sub- Total for 6 months			£72,800,000
Personnel Transport and Change-over – 6 months (Estimate)
	No. Return Flights	Fuel Cost	Airframe cost		Sub Total	6 months
	80	£2,000,000	£19,200,000			£21,200,000
			Sub- Total for 6 months			£21,200,000
Additional Costs e.g. Basing Rental, Rotation of Fighters for maintenance, etc.
			Sub- Total for 6 months			£100,000,000
Estimated Total Bill for 6 months Land-Based Air Deployment						£905,542,000
Notes:
1.  Aviation Fuel cost estimated to be £4.00 per gallon – as for civil airlines.
2.  Airframe cost given = Government Figures per hour (e.g. Tornado: £35,000, Typhoon: £70,000 per hour) multiplied by length of mission multiplied by the number of missions.
3.  Weapons cost per week taken from MoD news release: £6 million.
4.  The estimated number of missions flown by Tornado per week (40) equates to one mission per aircraft every two days. United States Marine Corps Harriers were flying two missions per aircraft per day (four times as many as the Tornado). MoD reports would appear to indicate a higher flying rate (and therefore, greater expense): Tornado and Typhoon flew numerous patrols over Libya during the past two days. (MoD, 18 Jun 11.)
5.  Various MoD statements/statistics as given by Defence News Analysis.

 

 

Annex B.

Equivalent Cost of Sea-Based Air Operations – Libya – Includes the following:
Close Air Support Aircraft Missions per Week (Estimate)
	No. Sorties ***	Fuel Cost	Airframe cost*	Weapons Cost**	Sub Total	6 months
Harrier	28	£161,000	£1,036,000	£3,000,000	£4,197,000	£109,122,000
Apache	14	£28,000	£210,000	£1,400,000	£1,638,000	£42,588,000
* See Note 2, below, for calculation basis.
** Weapons cost per week less than land based.  No Storm Shadow. Hellfire less expensive than Brimstone.
*** More than half Tornado/Typhoon sorties did not result in target attack.
AEW Sea King Aircraft Missions per Week (Estimate)
	No. Sorties ***	Fuel Cost	Airframe cost	Weapons Cost	Sub Total	6 months
Sea King	14	£28,000	£70,000	£0	£98,000	£2,548,000
			Sub- Total for 6 months			£154,258,000
Estimated Total Bill for 6 months Sea-Based Air Deployment						£154,258,000
Notes:
1.  Aviation Fuel cost estimated to be £4.00 per gallon – as for civil airlines.
2.  Airframe cost given = Government Figures per hour where available (e.g. Harrier: £37,000) multiplied by length of mission multiplied by the number of missions.