National Academies Press: OpenBook

Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft (2007)

Chapter: 5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations

« Previous: 4 TF33 Series Powered Aircraft
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

5
Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations

This chapter details the approach used to estimate the recurring and nonrecurring costs of the re-engining and engine modifications proposed in Chapter 1. The committee employs various methods to estimate the costs and benefits of switching to newer engines with better fuel efficiency and improved reliability. For each of the alternatives, it calculates the net present value (NPV), which lets it see if the Air Force might be able to recoup its investment costs through savings from lower fuel consumption and fewer hours spent in maintenance.

ANALYSIS APPROACH

The life-cycle cost (LCC) section includes an analysis of LCC and a partial NPV analysis for all re-engining and engine modification alternatives. This analysis is not a complete benefit/cost analysis since not all benefits associated with engine modifications, re-engining, and airframe modification to achieve fuel savings or reliability, maintainability, and availability improvements, and/or performance improvements are monetized. It does not attempt to account for the residual value of engines (which, in general, could improve the case for re-engining or engine modification) after re-engined airframe retirement or for any national benefit from reduced dependence on imported foreign oil.

The committee believes that no such analysis was feasible within the time constraints of this study. However, it recommends that such an analysis be undertaken on selected options by the Air Force prior to any final decision. In particular, the Air Force should consider the potential cost-saving or capability-enhancing changes to force structure that would be enabled by re-engining existing platforms.

The NPV analysis does, however, look at the recurring and nonrecurring costs as well as the benefits that result from engines having improved reliability and specific fuel consumption (SFC). The analysis is performed for the aircraft/engine combinations listed in Table 5-1.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

TABLE 5-1 Aircraft/Engine Combinations

Aircraft Designation

Current Enginea

Re-engine Candidate

Re-engining

Engine Modification/Upgrade

KC-135R

F108 (CFM 56-2)

 

No

Yes

B-52

TF33 (JT3D)

F117 (4), CFM56 (4), CFM34 (8)

Yes

No

C-5

TF39

CF6-80

Ongoing

No

C-130H

T56 (T56)

AE 2100, PW150

Yes

Yes

KC-135D/E

TF33 (JT3D)

CFM56-2, JT8D-219

Yes

No

KC-10

CF6-50 (CF6-50)

 

No

Yesb

B-1

F101

F101 SLEP, F119, Derivative F119

Yesb

Yesb

E-3

TF33 (JT3D)

CFM56-2 and -7, JT8D-219

Yes

No

E-8

TF33 (JT3D)

JT8D-219, CFM56-2 and -7

Ongoing

No

aMilitary designations shown. Designations in parentheses are commercial engine equivalents where they exist.

bEntries corrected after release of the January 31, 2007, prepublication version of the report. An entry for the C-17 was also deleted at that time.

Nonrecurring Costs

Nonrecurring costs include any costs of the research and development (R&D), testing and evaluation efforts associated with airframe modification, engine modification, nacelle redesign, pylon redesign, other subsystems redesign, flight testing, weapons separation design efforts related to new tooling requirements, and all systems engineering and program management by contractors and the government.

Recurring Costs

The recurring costs would include the unit cost of new engines, of installation kits (engine and airframe modifications), of logistical support, of training, tooling, and test equipment, of spares, data, etc.

Costs and Benefits to Operations and Support

The benefits to operations and support (O&S) would include the impact of fuel savings attributed to more fuel-efficient engines. They also include the impact of improvements in engine reliability and maintainability on cost of mission maintenance personnel, consumables, depot-level reparables (DLRs), and engine overhaul. These elements are defined by the Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) as follows:

  • Maintenance personnel cost reflects the pay and allowances of military and civilian personnel who support and perform maintenance on the engine. Depending on the maintenance concept and the organizational structure, this element will include maintenance personnel at the organizational level and, possibly, the intermediate level.

  • Consumables are materials and bits-and-pieces repair parts that are used up or consumed during maintenance.

  • DLRs are the unit-level cost of reimbursing the stock fund for purchases of the DLR spares (also referred to as exchangeables) used to replace initial stocks. DLRs may include repairable

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

individual parts, assemblies, or subassemblies that are required on a recurring basis for the repair of major end items of equipment.

  • And, finally, depot overhaul costs are typically for the most complex work that requires expertise or equipment not available at the organizational or intermediate levels.

Maintenance and Fuel Savings

As shown in Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1, the Air Force uses over half of the fuel consumed by DoD, and a significant share of that fuel is used to power nonfighter aircraft. Further, as reported in the Air Force Total Ownership Cost (AFTOC) database and as displayed in Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, the cost of engine O&S was about 20 percent of all aircraft O&S costs in FY05. Engine maintenance and fuel costs form a substantial portion of the Air Force’s budget.

Re-engining nonfighter aircraft presents the Air Force with an opportunity to consider more fuel-efficient and reliable engines. Similarly, modification or upgrade of current engines can incorporate design improvements to improve reliability and fuel efficiency. However, the costs of these improvements are not inconsequential. Thus, the benefits of the fuel savings and reduction in maintenance need to be balanced against the cost of the investments.

The next section describes the methodology used in the NPV analysis of the nonrecurring and recurring costs, and fuel and maintenance savings.

METHODOLOGY AND BASIS FOR THE ESTIMATE

There are three standard methods of estimating costs: analogy, parametric, and engineering bottom-up. The analogy method is fairly simple. It draws from actual program costs or historical cost information from a legacy program of similar technology and complexity. Sometimes simple adjustments to the legacy data may be necessary to facilitate estimating the cost of the new system. The second way to estimate cost is parametric modeling, a statistical method that also uses historical data, regressing cost or hours—the dependent variable—against a series of independent variables. These independent variables are often parameters related to the system performance: physical or programmatic characteristics. The resultant relationship is often called a cost-estimating relationship (CER). The third method is the engineering bottom-up method, which is a much more detailed approach. Where the committee was unable to obtain the necessary information needed to use one of the above methodologies, it relied on expert judgment.

The committee’s analysis includes estimates of nonrecurring and recurring costs based on CERs developed by RAND for use in the conceptual design of new aeronautical systems and previously published (Younossi et al., 2002). Table 5-2 summarizes these CERs.1 The RAND CER for the nonrecurring costs estimates the cost of developing a new derivative engine. For the purposes of this analysis, the committee assumes that the re-engining effort amounts to only 10 percent of the costs estimated by

1

For the prepublication version of this report, the committee estimated the recurring costs for the various aircraft/engine combinations using the RAND CER for recurring unit costs (Table 5-2) or, for those cases for which it was available; the committee used market data to estimate recurring costs. This method meant, however, that some of the aircraft/engine cost estimates based on CERs were being compared with other estimates using both CERs and market data. When the committee’s analysis was redone for this final report, recurring costs were estimated using the RAND CER only. The reason for this change was to provide a consistent source of data.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

TABLE 5-2 Nonrecurring and Recurring Cost Estimating Relationships

Cost Element

Methodology

Nonrecurring costs for derivative engine

lnrd01m = −339.422 + 5.066 lnritf − 1.299 lnTSFC + 0.582 lnfsth

 

 

 

(4.45)

 

(−3.89)

 

(5.32)

 

 

R-squared = 0.8332

Adj R-squared = 0.8068

Root MSE = 0.40575

lnrd01m, natural log of the development cost in million 2001 dollars;

lnritf, natural log of the rotor inlet temperature (F°);

lnTSFC, natural log of the thrust-specific fuel consumption (lb/hr/lb); and

lnfsth, natural log of full-scale test hours.

Recurring unit costs

lnT1 = −110.4 − 8.55 lnslope + 0.482 ab + 1.162 lnritf + 0.2615 lndryw

 

 

(−13.02)

 

(4.595)

(3.626)

 

(2.416)

 

R-squared = 0.9703

Adj R-squared = 0.9641

Root MSE = 0.13703

lnT1, natural log of the production price for first unit in million 2001 dollars;

lnslope, natural log of the cost improvement curve slope;

ab, binary variable (1) if afterburning engine, (0) if not;

lndrywt, natural log of the dry weight for the engine (lb); and

lnritf, natural log of the rotor inlet temperature (F°).

the RAND CER since the candidate engines are already developed. This amount estimated is thereby intended to account for the integration and additional testing efforts only.2

Fuel Consumption

The usual practice in figuring fuel consumption, particularly in the case of acquiring a new system, is to specify a spectrum of mission profiles and meticulously calculate the fuel burn rate averaged over that spectrum. For new system acquisition, there is little alternative to this procedure since there is no experience base for an aircraft that does not yet exist. For all aircraft under consideration in this study, the committee has a very substantial experience base from which to derive fuel burn rates (pounds or gallons per hour). These fuel burn rates are the average over a mix of mission profiles actually experienced. The committee followed the general principle that these average fuel burn rates represent the best information available absent compelling evidence to the contrary. Assuming that the mix of mission profiles in future will remain the same as the mix already experienced, a very good estimator of fuel

2

This approach may not capture all nonrecurring costs; for example, replacing eight engines with four may require additional modifications to the aircraft such as a larger tail to deal with an engine-out flight condition. In general, however, nonrecurring costs were not primary drivers of the results, so the committee deemed the 10 percent CER approach to be reasonable for the purposes of its analysis.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

TABLE 5-3 Formulas for Estimating Fuel Consumption and Repair Costs for a Single Aircraft

Cost Element

Parametric Estimating Relationship

Fuel consumption (gal/aircraft-yr)

Fuel consumption = Fuel consumptionCurrent * TSFCNew/TSFCCurrent

Repair cost ($/aircraft-yr)

Repair cost = 1188070710 * flying hours ^0.7013 * max power ^0.7975 * removal rate ^0.4421 * e^(MQT date * −0.0103)

consumption rates for re-engined/modified-engine aircraft is obtained from the ratio of current to the re-engined installed thrust-specific fuel consumption (TSFC) taken at cruise condition.3

Engine Repair Cost

The RAND CER for engine repair is based on cost and usage data from the AFTOC database from FY98 to FY04. The relationship predicts engine-related O&S costs per aircraft MDS fleet per year in the four O&S cost elements described in the preceding section. These costs are measured in FY04 dollars. Inputs, or independent variables, in the relationship are maximum thrust per aircraft, the year of military qualification test (MQT) for the engine, the mean time between removals (or engine time on wing4), and whether the aircraft and engine are flown by Air Force Reserve components or the active Air Force. Thrust and MQT year data were obtained from The Engine Handbook (U.S. Air Force, 2005). Removal information was obtained from the Air Force’s Comprehensive Engine Management System (CEMS) database. The estimates used in the analysis were based on this relationship with the exception of the C-130 and KC-10 estimates which were drawn from contractor briefings. Table 5-3 shows the estimating relationships.5

ASSUMPTIONS, INPUTS, AND DATA

This section presents the assumptions used in the analysis, the technical and fleet information needed in the estimating relationships, and the sources of those data. The ground rules and assumptions used in the NPV analysis are these: (1) all costs are in or are adjusted to millions of FY06 dollars using a 3 percent deflator; (2) a nominal discount rate of 5.2 percent is used based on Office of Management and Budget recommendations; (3) a fuel cost of $2.50 per gallon was assumed, and the committee performed sensitivities using 3, 6, and 9 percent fuel cost escalation rates to demonstrate the influence of potentially rising fuel costs.6 Maintenance costs were assumed to grow at 3 percent per year.

3

To complete its analysis, the committee used the simplifying assumption equating fuel burn improvement to TSFC improvement. The committee understands there is more to fuel burn than cruise TSFC. Installation and matching have important influences as well, and these effects can differ from engine to engine on the same airplane. Flight test data can yield qualitatively and quantitatively different results for fuel burn than CER analysis yields. Thus engines should not be compared on this basis alone.

4

The number of flying hours per engine before it is removed for repair; it is a standard measure of engine reliability.

5

In some re-engining cases considered here, the planned life of the aircraft in flight hours is less than the overhaul interval for candidate modern commercial engines. Thus the aircraft could be expected to be retired before its engines needed a major overhaul. Since such overhauls represent a significant portion of the maintenance cost, the actual maintenance cost of those engines may be less than that estimated by the approach.

6

From 2003 to 2006, the actual inflation factor was 25 percent, and that may be driving the upgrade interest at this time. The large increase in fuel prices in recent years can be placed in a longer historical context of far smaller increases. The committee selected 3, 6, and 9 percent as annual fuel inflation rates, consistent with a wide spectrum of long-term projections.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

TABLE 5-4 Assumptions for Fuel Savings

Candidate Aircraft/Engine Configuration

SFC/Fuel Burn Improvement (%)a,b

Re-engining

 

B-1/F119/5.0

10.0

E-3/CFM56-2B-1

11.8

E-3/JT8D-219

6.2

E-3/CFM56-7B22

19.1

E-8/CFM56-2B-1c

E-8/JT8D-219c

E-8/CFM56-7B22c

KC-135D/E/CFM56-2B-1

15.8

KC-135D/E/JT8D-219

10.4

KC-135D/E/CFM56-7B22

22.7

B-52/F117-PW-100 [4]

24.7

B-52/CF34-10A [8]

15.9

B-52/CFM56-5C2 [4]

26.6

C-5/CF6-80C2 (F103-GE-102)d

Engine modification

 

KC-135 R/T/CFM56-A2

2.1

B-1/F101 Mod

10.0

KC-10/CF6-50 Mod

0.3

aValues corrected after release of the January 31, 2007, prepublication version of the report.

bValues listed are based on estimates obtained from contractors.

cE-8 re-engining already ongoing.

dC-5 re-engining already ongoing.

SOURCE: Committee generated.

Improvements in fuel efficiency are accounted for by the change in TSFC, installed where available (see Table 5-4). In the table, the fuel burn improvement is calculated as the TSFC of the current engine configuration less the TSFC of the candidate. A positive improvement figure indicates that the re-engined or modified aircraft/engine configuration candidate is more fuel efficient than the current configuration. A negative improvement figure indicates that the re-engined or modified candidate engine is less fuel efficient.7

Table 5-5 lists the data used as inputs to the estimating relationships for recurring and nonrecurring costs, fuel costs, and repair costs. Table 5-6 shows where the committee obtained the information it used for the NPV analysis.8 While the committee tried hard to draw information from public sources such as

7

For the prepublication version of this report, the committee took the TSFC values of the current aircraft/engine and candidate configurations from a variety of sources, including The Engine Handbook (U.S. Air Force, 2005), contractor estimates, and Jane’s Online. In some instances, the TSFC performance of a current engine at one set of operating conditions was being compared to the TSFC performance of a candidate replacement engine at a different set of operating conditions; that is, apples-to-oranges comparisons. When it redid its analysis for this final report, the committee requested TSFC values directly from the engine contractors and, so it could make apples-to-apples comparisons, the committee requested the TSFC values for the current engines and the candidate replacement or modified engines be for the same typical cruise conditions.

8

Two of variables needed for the fuel consumption and engine maintenance regressions but missing from the table are the slope of the unit learning curve and full-scale-test hours; they were assumed to be at their recent historical average—0.97 and 9,189 hr, respectively.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

TABLE 5-5 Inputs to CERs

Re-engining: Current Configurations and Candidates

Number of Engines

SFC at Maximum Power lb/lb-hr

Ratio Maximum TOW toWE

After-burning? (1 = yes; 0 = no)

Maximum Power per Engine (lb thrust)

Mean Shop Visit Rate (Removals/1,000 Hours)

Engine Military Qualification Date

Engine Dry Weight (lb)

Rotor Inlet Temperature (F°)

B-1/F101-GE-102a

4

2.460

2.62

1

30,000

4.410

1983

4,428

2550

B-1/F119/5.0

4

2.214

2.62

1

37,000

4.410d

2001

4,150

3092

E-3/TF33-PW-100Aa

4

0.560

2.04

0

21,000

0.610

1974

4,790

1750

E-3/CFM56-2B-1

4

0.363

2.04

0

21.634

0.093

1982

4,610

2228

E-3/JT8D-219

4

0.454

2.04

0

21,000

0.151d

1985

4,612

2420

E-3/CFM56-7

4

0.360d

2.04

0

22,700

0.050d

1996

5,234

2228

E-8/TF33-PW-102Ca,b

4

0.535

1.94

0

18,000

0.970

1963

4,260

1600

E-8/CFM56-2B-1b

4

E-8/JT8D-219b

4

E-8/CFM56-7b

4

KC-135D/E/TF33-PW-102a

4

0.535

2.65

0

18,000

0.700

1982

4,260

1600

KC-135D/E/CFM56-2B-1

4

0.363

2.65

0

21,634

0.093

1982

4,610

2228

KC-135D/E/JT8D-219

4

0.454

2.65

0

21,000

0.151

1985

4,612

2420

KC-135D/E/CFM56-7

4

0.360d

2.65

0

22,700

0.050d

1996

5,234

2228

B-52/TF33-P-103a

8

0.520

2.87

0

17,000

0.970

1960

3,905

1600

B-52/F117-PW-100

4

0.347

2.87

0

40,440

0.194d

1987

7,122

2400

B-52/CF34-10A

8

0.370

2.87

0

18,500

0.080

2006

3,700

2200

B-52/CFM56-5C2

4

0.320

2.87

0

31,000

0.100

1991

5,670

2400

C-5/TF39-GE-1Ca

4

0.315

2.14

0

40,805

0.700

1969

7,186

2350

C-5/CF6-80C2c

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KC-135 R/T/CFM56-2B-1a

4

0.3630

2.65

0

21,634

0.092

1982

4,610

2228

KC-135 R/T/CFM56-2B-1 (Mod)

4

0.3557

2.65

0

21,634

0.069

1982

B-1/F101 F-101-GE-102a

4

0.5750

2.62

1

30,000

2.760

1985

4,448

2550

B-1/F101 Mod

4

0.5175

2.62

1

30,000

1.290

2012

KC-10/CF6-50a

3

0.3990

2.45

0

51,711

0.750

1972

8,731

2490

KC-10/CF6-50 Mod

3

0.3977

2.45

0

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: The C-130 information as well as the information in the shaded cells was not needed for the CERs since the fuel and maintenance savings as well as the nonrecurring and the recurring costs were already provided in the discussion in this report. TOW, takeoff weight;WE, weight empty.

aCurrent engine configuration.

bE-8 re-engining already ongoing.

cC-5 re-engining already ongoing.

dValues corrected after release of the January 31, 2007, prepublication version of the report.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

TABLE 5-6 Sources of Data

 

Maintenance Cost CERs

Production and Development Cost CERs

Re-engining Candidate

Total Thrust

Mean Shop Visit Rate

Qualification Date

Dry Engine Weight

RIT (F°)

B-1/F119/5.0

Contractor estimate

Assumed no change

Assumption

Contractor estimate

Analogy to similar system

E-3/CFM56-2B-1

The Engine Handbook

AFTOC

CFM engine fact sheet

Aviation Week

The Engine Handbook

E-3/JT8D-219

Contractor estimate

Contractor estimate

Jane’s Online

Jane’s Online

Analogy to similar system

E-3/CFM56-7B22

Contractor estimate

Contractor estimate

CFM engine fact sheet

Aviation Week

Assumed same as 2B-1

E-8/CFM56-2B-1a

E-8/JT8D-219a

E-8/CFM56-7B22a

KC-135D/E/CFM56-2B-1

The Engine Handbook

AFTOC

CFM engine fact sheet

Aviation Week

The Engine Handbook

KC-135D/E/JT8D-219

Contractor estimate

Contractor estimate

Jane’s Online

Jane’s Online

Analogy to similar system

KC-135D/E/CFM56-7B22

Contractor estimate

Contractor estimate

CFM engine fact sheet

Aviation Week

Assumed same as 2B-1

B-52/F117-PW100 (4)

The Engine Handbook

Contractor estimate

The Engine Handbook

The Engine Handbook

The Engine Handbook

B-52/CF34-10A (8)

Jane’s Online

AFTOC

GE engine fact sheet

Aviation Week

Analogy to similar system

B-52/CFM56-5C2 (4)

Aviation Week

Assumption

CFM engine fact sheet

Aviation Week

Assumed same as F117

C-5/CF6-80C2 (F103-GE-102)b

KC-135R/T/CFM56-A2

Contractor estimate

Contractor estimate

Contractor estimate

B-1/F101 Mod

Contractor estimate

Contractor estimate

Contractor estimate

KC-10/CF6-50 Mod

Contractor estimate

NOTE: Shaded cells indicate data not used in analysis. RIT, rotor inlet temperature.

aE-8 re-engining already in progress.

bC-5 re-engining already in progress.

Air Force fact sheets,9 CFM fact sheets,10 and GE Engine fact sheets,11 only a few accurate pieces of information could be so obtained. Information had to be acquired from limited secure-access databases:

9

These public documents, available at http://www.af.mil/factsheets/, contain information on many variables about aircraft currently in the Air Force inventory. Total operating weight and weight empty were taken from these sheets.

10

CFM International is the consortium that produces CFM engines. Public data and history can be found on its Web site: http://www.cfm56.com/engines/.

11

GE fact sheets are available at http://www.geae.com/engines/.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

AFTOC,12 Jane’s and Jane’s Online, Aviation Week,13 contractor presentations to the committee, and finally, proprietary datasets. When no information was available for a given system, as was often the case for rotor inlet temperature, data for an analogous system were substituted.

NET PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS

The partial NPV model calculates the costs and benefits of modifying or replacing an engine for an entire fleet of aircraft, with the costs being the nonrecurring and recurring costs for development, installation, and testing of the new engine and the benefits being the savings due to lower fuel consumption and less maintenance. These costs and benefits are calculated annually, permitting the construction of a cumulative discounted cash flow profile. Nonrecurring costs are apportioned over the first few years of the re-engining,14 and recurring costs are allocated to the time when the aircraft is converted. Fuel and maintenance savings are calculated annually and persist until the fleet is retired.15 The model assumes that the current fleet of aircraft will continue to run at the current rate for annual engine hours until estimated retirement dates.16

Figure 5-1 demonstrates the mechanics of the model for a B-1 re-engining with a F101 modification. The three solid lines indicate cumulative discounted cash flows—assuming a different discounting factor for the fuel costs—summing in present value as years progress (from left to right). In the first 7 years, nonrecurring and recurring investments are being made, and the net cash flow is negative. But as aircraft are converted to a new engine, positive savings in fuel costs and maintenance are seen immediately thereafter. The dashed line represents the fleet size. As the figure shows, starting around year 25, the fleet gradually retires from service, and the net benefits no longer accumulate after year 32, by which time the entire fleet has been retired. It should again be noted that the analysis makes no attempt to assess the financial benefits associated with the resale value of low-hour engines following the retirement of re-engined airframes.

Next, the committee collects the summary results of the NPVs for all candidates and displays them in tabular form. The summary tables include two sets of data:

  1. The number of years to break even on the investment (for the B-1 engine modification illustrated in Figure 5-1, these are 8.0 years, 7.7 years, and 7.4 years for 3 percent, 6 percent, and 9 percent fuel escalation, respectively, as shown by the points at which the curves cross the horizontal axis.)

  2. The cumulative cash flow at the 20-year point, in this case $470* million, $610* million, and $815* million for 3 percent, 6 percent, and 9 percent fuel escalation.17 (To ensure consistency for purposes of interpretation, the results in Tables 5-7 and 5-8 are based on no retirements before breakeven or the 20-year point, whichever is greater, even if earlier retirement is expected.)

12

AFTOC, the Air Force Total Ownership Cost management information system, contains financial and logistic data on the current fleet of Air Force aircraft. A user account is required for access to the system, which is restricted to cleared personnel only. See more at https://aftoc.hill.af.mil/. Data on flying hours and mean time between services were taken from AFTOC.

13

All references to Aviation Week are to the article “Outlook/specifications: Gas turbine engines,” in Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 17, 2005, pp. 122-134.

14

The apportionment is 40 percent in the first year, 40 percent in the second year, and 20 percent in the third year. Different spend-out patterns were tried, with insignificant impacts on overall NPV.

15

Fuel usage and maintenance requirements are determined from two estimating relationships: the first estimates the number of gallons of fuel burned and the second estimates annual maintenance costs.

16

However, the model does not take into account the reconstitution of the fleet with a set of future aircraft after the current fleet retires.

17

Asterisks denote values corrected after release of the January 31, 2007, prepublication version of the report.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

FIGURE 5-1 B-1/F101 modification cash flow analysis. *Values corrected after release of the January 31, 2007, prepublication version of the report.

Table 5-7 displays the result of the NPV calculation for all the re-engining alternatives. It lists the fleet size, the annual flight hours, changes in thrust (if applicable), annual fuel consumption of the original fleet, fuel savings as a percentage and in millions of gallons of fuel saved per year for the re-engined fleet; estimated savings on maintenance cost as a percentage and in millions of dollars per year; the production costs for each engine replaced; and the total development cost. The next three columns list the number of years to recoup the investment if fuel costs increase uniformly at 3 percent, 6 percent, and 9 percent per year. The last three columns show the cash flows estimated at the 20-year point for the same set of fuel cost increases. The cells of the table that recoup investment costs in less than 20 years and therefore have positive cash flow at the 20-year point are all shaded. If the criterion for a good business case is to recoup the investment in 20 years18 or less and if fuel costs are expected to rise at 3 percent per year and the discount and inflation rates are expected to be as discussed previously, then the C-130H/AE2100, C-130H/PW150, E-3/CFM56-7B22, and B-52/CFM56-5C2[4] options meet the criterion. If, on the other hand, fuel costs are expected to rise faster, then more re-engining candidates will meet the criterion, as indicated by the shaded cells of the table for the higher rates (6 percent and

18

The committee’s choice of using 20 years as the point to estimate cash flows is arbitrary. For an actual case, the Air Force might use a different criterion.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

9 percent) of fuel cost increases. Finally, if the criterion is to recoup investment in some number of years different from 20, the appropriate columns of the table can be used to determine whether the criterion will be met. (All the above assume of course, that the aircraft will not be retired before the criterion is met.) Table 5-8 displays the results for all the potential engine modification alternatives in the same format and is interpreted the same way. It is generally easier to make a business case for engine modifications than for complete re-engining when such modifications improve efficiency or reliability, because the costs are generally comparatively low. At a fuel cost increase of 3 percent per year, the C-130H/T56-A427, B-1/F101, and KC-10/CF6-50 modifications meet the 20-year-payback criterion. With higher rates for fuel cost increases, the C-130H/T56-S3.5 modification comes into play, as can be seen from the shaded cells. The KC-10 savings are due almost exclusively to lower maintenance costs and to the absence of development costs.

In addition, for those who believe that a burdened fuel cost should be used, Table 5-9 shows the results of a sensitivity analysis run assuming various burdened rates of fuel. The figure shown is the number of years until payback for each candidate, under the specified total burdened cost of fuel—$2.50, $5, $10, $20, or $40 (see Appendix G for a sensitivity analysis). The total cost is assumed to have two components: (1) a raw fuel cost that starts at $2.50 a gallon and increases at 6 percent annually and (2) the remainder, an overhead component increasing at 3 percent per year.19 Care must be taken in interpreting these results since to realize the savings implied by the estimates generally implies a significant change to the infrastructure or to some other element of the burdened cost, and it is often difficult to imagine how this might come about absent significant changes in force structure, basing, and/or operating practices. As can be seen from the shading on the chart, if one believes strongly enough in high burdened fuel costs, a strong business case can be made for almost any proposal.

Finally, it should be remembered that the analysis does not consider the resale value or the recovery value of the engines following retirement of the re-engined airframes.

SUMMARY

The committee considers the analysis results presented in this chapter to be indicative of trends and directions rather than definitive answers and the results cannot and should not be used to differentiate between specific engines on an airframe. Despite the presentation of the committee’s analysis results (“years required to recoup investment” and “cash flow at 20-year point”) in the tables as precise numbers resulting from the committee’s calculations, it is imperative they be viewed and used as approximate estimates, each surrounded by some amount of uncertainty. Before making actual re-engining decisions, the Air Force would have to do much more thorough and detailed analysis than that done by the committee. The Air Force analysis would require higher confidence estimates of input values—for example, for fuel burn improvement and recurring costs—and it would include considerations not dealt with by the committee’s analysis—for example, mission impacts.

The committee used its analysis to identify the aircraft for which there was a potential life cycle cost benefit to re-engining or engine modification. That is as far as the results presented in this chapter can be taken.

19

That is, if the fully burdened fuel cost is $40 a gallon today, $2.50 of that is raw fuel cost and $37.50 is overhead burden. In the NPV model, 10 years from now, raw fuel costs 2.5 * 1.0610 = $4.48 a gallon, while overhead is 37.5 * 1.0310 = $50.40 a gallon, for a total of $54.88 a gallon.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

TABLE 5-7 NPV Analysis Results for Re-engininga

 

 

 

 

 

Fuel Savings

Re-engining Candidate (Aircraft/Engine)

Fleet Size

Annual Flight Hours

Change in Thrust (%)

Annual Fuel Used (million gal)

(%)

(million gal/yr)

C-130H/AE 2100c

272

117,776

N/A

169

28.0

47.3

C-130H/PW150c

272

117,776

N/A

169

25.0

42.3

B-1/F119/5.0

67

17,745

23

82

10.0

8.2

E-3/CFM56-2B-1

32

17,184

3

34

11.8

4.0

E-3/JT8D-219

32

17,184

0

34

6.2

2.1

E-3/CFM56-7B22

32

17,184

8

34

19.1

6.5

E-8/CFM56-2B-1d

19

8,704

E-8/JT8D-219d

19

8,704

E-8/CFM56-7B22d

19

8,704

KC-135D/E/CFM56-2B-1

115

35,190

20

45

15.8

7.1

KC-135D/E/JT8D-219

115

35,190

17

45

10.4

4.7

KC-135D/E/CFM56-7B22

115

35,190

26

45

22.7

10.2

B-52/F117-PW-100 [4]

76

24,016

19

71

24.7

17.5

B-52/CF34-10A [8]

76

24,016

9

71

15.9

11.3

B-52/CFM56-5C2 [4]

76

24,016

−9

71

26.6

18.9

C-5/CF6-80C2 (F103-GE-102)e

111

40,737

NOTE: The engine cost estimates presented are derived from correlations developed for historical military engines and may not reflect the current fair market prices of commercial engines considered in this study. Engine cost estimates vary widely, and the estimates presented may vary by as much as 100 percent from estimates developed by other independent sources such as the Avitas BlueBook of Jet Engine Values 2007 or the IBA Engine Value Book 2005.

aValues corrected after release of the January 31, 2007, prepublication version of the report.

bShading indicates a recouping of investment costs in less than 20 years and thus a positive cash flow at the 20-year point.

TABLE 5-8 NPV Analysis Results for Engine Modificationa

 

 

 

 

 

Fuel Savings

Engine Modification Candidate

Fleet Size

Annual Flight Hours

Change in Thrust (%)

Annual Fuel Used (million gal)

(%)

(million gal/yr)

KC-135 R/T/CFM56-2B-1 (Mod)

420

147,495

0

359

2.1

7.6

C-130H/T56-A427 Modc

272

132,262

N/A

189

13.0

24.6

C-130H/T56-S3.5 Modc

272

132,262

N/A

189

8.0

15.1

B-1/F101 Mod

67

23,356

0

109

10.0

10.9

KC-10/CF6-50 Mod

59

51,237

0

177

0.3

0.5

NOTE: The engine cost estimates presented are derived from correlations developed for historical military engines and may not reflect the current fair market prices of commercial engines considered in this study. Engine cost estimates vary widely, and the estimates presented may vary by as much as 100 percent from estimates developed by other independent sources such as the Avitas BlueBook of Jet Engine Values 2007 or the IBA Engine Value Book 2005.

aValues corrected after release of the January 31, 2007, prepublication version of the report.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

Estimated Savings on Fleet Maintenance Cost

Cost (million 2006 $)

Years to Recoupb with Fuel Cost Annual Increase of

Cash Flow at 20-yr Point (million $)b with Annual Fuel Cost Increase of

(%)

(million $/yr)

Production of One Engine

Total Development

3%

6%

9%

3%

6%

9%

50

14.1

1.3

45

17.7

14.4

12.4

203

817

1,715

50

14.1

1.2

95

19.5

15.5

13.2

37

585

1,387

11

7.5

5.2

26

>60

51.1

33.5

−1,029

−992

−776

59

13.9

2.3

52

22.2

19.0

16.6

−34

20

98

52

12.2

2.6

59

36.3

29.4

24.5

−157

−128

−87

72

17.0

2.4

53

16.5

14.5

13.0

78

165

291

53

24.4

2.2

52

45.1

32.3

25.4

−532

−438

−301

44

20.5

2.4

59

>60

47.9

34.3

−769

−707

−616

68

31.3

2.3

53

31.6

24.9

20.6

−378

−243

−46

45

25.6

2.8

81

20.6

17.0

14.6

−27

206

545

78

43.8

2.0

48

28.4

23.5

19.9

−361

−211

7

68

38.5

2.6

90

16.1

14.1

12.6

224

475

841

cThe fuel savings noted for the C-130 with new or modified engines are based on the aircraft being flown at the optimal altitude and airspeed for the selected engines and propellers. The flexibility exists in most C-130 missions for the aircraft to be operated at the best range or fuel consumption conditions. The other aircraft and engines considered in the study are operated at their prescribed mission conditions.

dE-8 re-engining already in progress.

eC-5 re-engining already in progress

Estimated Savings on Fleet Maintenance Cost

Cost (million 2006 $)

Years to Recoupb with Fuel Cost Annual Increase of

Cash Flow at 20-yr Point (million $)b with Annual Fuel Cost Increase of

(%)

(million $/yr)

Production of One Engine

Total Development

3%

6%

9%

3%

6%

9%

12

14

1.0

15

>60

56.6

36.6

−1,318

−1,213

−1,060

40

11

0.7

60

17.8

14.6

12.6

107

431

905

40

11

0.7

60

26.1

19.7

16.3

−184

15

307

46

26

0.5

9

8.0

7.7

7.4

470

610

815

15

25

0.2

0

3.8

3.8

3.8

325

333

343

bShading indicates a recouping of investment costs in less than 20 years and thus a positive cash flow at the 20-year point.

cThe fuel savings noted for the C-130 with new or modified engines are based on the aircraft being flown at the optimal altitude and airspeed for the selected engines and propellers. The flexibility exists in most C-130 missions for the aircraft to be operated at the best range or fuel consumption conditions. The other aircraft and engines considered in the study are operated at their prescribed mission conditions.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×

TABLE 5-9 Sensitivity of Years to Recoup Investment to Total Burdened Fuel Costa

Candidate Aircraft/Engine Configuration

Years to Recoup Investment with Total Burdened Fuel Cost of

$2.50/Galb

$5/Galb

$10/Galb

$20/Galb

$40/Galb

Re-engining

C-130H/AE 2100c

17.7

10.9

7.3

4.2

2.5

C-130H/PW150c

19.5

11.7

7.9

4.8

3.1

B-1/F119/5.0

>60

55.7

24.4

12.9

7.8

E-3/CFM56-2B-1

22.2

15.7

10.5

7.2

5.2

E-3/JT8D-219

36.3

26.2

17.5

11.3

7.5

E-3/CFM56-7B22

16.5

11.6

8.0

5.7

4.0

E-8/CFM56-2B-1d

E-8/JT8D-219d

E-8/CFM56-7B22d

KC-135D/E/CFM56-2B-1

45.1

28.6

17.6

11.0

7.4

KC-135D/E/JT8D-219

>60

48.9

27.8

16.3

10.0

KC-135D/E/CFM56-7B22

31.6

20.9

13.5

8.8

6.2

B-52/F117-PW-100 [4]

20.6

13.2

8.7

6.1

3.9

B-52/CF34-10A [8]

28.4

20.0

13.3

8.9

6.3

B-52/CFM56-5C2 [4]

16.1

11.2

7.8

5.6

3.6

C-5/CF6-80C2 (F103-GE-102)e

Engine modification

KC-135 R/T/CFM56-2B-1 Mod

>60

>60

30.0

15.9

9.5

C-130H/T56-A427 Modc

17.8

11.1

7.6

4.6

3.1

C-130H/T56-S3.5 Modc

26.1

15.3

9.9

6.6

4.1

B-1/F101 Mod

8.0

6.9

5.4

4.3

4.1

KC-10/CF6-50 Mod

3.8

3.6

3.3

3.0

3.0

NOTE: The engine cost estimates presented are derived from correlations developed for historical military engines and may not reflect the current fair market prices of commercial engines considered in this study. Engine cost estimates vary widely, and the estimates presented may vary by as much as 100 percent from estimates developed by other independent sources such as the Avitas BlueBook of Jet Engine Values 2007 or the IBA Engine Value Book 2005.

aValues corrected after release of the January 31, 2007, prepublication version of the report.

bShading indicates a recouping of investment costs in less than 20 years and thus a positive cash flow at the 20-year point.

cThe fuel savings noted for the C-130 with new or modified engines are based on the aircraft being flown at the optimal altitude and airspeed for the selected engines and propellers. The flexibility exists in most C-130 missions for the aircraft to be operated at the best range or fuel consumption conditions. The other aircraft and engines considered in the study are operated at their prescribed mission conditions.

dE-8 re-engining already in progress.

eC-5 re-engining already in progress

REFERENCES

AW&ST (Aviation Week and Space Technology). 2005. “Outlook/specifications: Gas turbine engines.” January 17. 162(3): 122-134.

Fox, Bernard, Michael Boito, John Graser, and Obaid Younossi. 2004. Test and Evaluation Trends and Costs for Aircraft and Guided Weapons. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Project Air Force. Available online at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG109.pdf. Last accessed on January 18, 2006.

Jane’s Aero-Engines. Jawa.janes.com. Updated February 20, 2006. Accessed July-September 2006.

U.S. Air Force. 2005. The Engine Handbook. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Air Logistics Center. December.

Younossi, Obaid, Mark Arena, Richard Moore, Mark Lorell, Joanna Mason, and John Graser. 2002. Military Jet Engine Acquisition: Technology Basics and Cost-Estimating Methodology. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Project Air Force. Available online at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1596.pdf. Last accessed on January 18, 2006.

Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"5 Recurring and Nonrecurring Cost Estimations." National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11837.
×
Page 68
Next: 6 Other Considerations »
Improving the Efficiency of Engines for Large Nonfighter Aircraft Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $59.00 Buy Ebook | $47.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Because of the important national defense contribution of large, non-fighter aircraft, rapidly increasing fuel costs and increasing dependence on imported oil have triggered significant interest in increased aircraft engine efficiency by the U.S. Air Force. To help address this need, the Air Force asked the National Research Council (NRC) to examine and assess technical options for improving engine efficiency of all large non-fighter aircraft under Air Force command. This report presents a review of current Air Force fuel consumption patterns; an analysis of previous programs designed to replace aircraft engines; an examination of proposed engine modifications; an assessment of the potential impact of alternative fuels and engine science and technology programs, and an analysis of costs and funding requirements.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!