Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1554
    Points : 1550
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH Empty Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH

    Post  LMFS on Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:16 pm

    This is a preliminary attempt to establish some facts regarding the actual costs (CPFH -Cost Per Flight Hour) of operating modern fighter jets.

    I have to say in advance that this is a difficult topic, due to several factors:

    - It is very difficult to get actual information from different planes and operators. In fact there is almost nothing I can find about Russian planes, so I have to limit this analysis to Western ones.
    - Even for the same plane, the costs are very different depending on the user, squadron, specific utilization conditions, age of the fleet, etc.
    - The accounting process for the different components of cost is rather complex and variable depending on each operator.

    I will try to point to different sources and make a small analysis based on what can be concluded from them. Anybody having solid / sourced information about this topic is welcome to post it here, so that we all can learn from it!

    Sources

    - US report about the rates that apply of their different aircraft, 2018:

    https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2019/2019_b_c.pdf

    - IHS Janes analysis is by far the best source I have found for non-US fighter and I broadly agree with their conclusions too.

    https://www.ftm.nl/upload/content/files/IHS%20Jane%27s%20Jet%20Operating%20Costs%20White%20Paper%20FINAL%2013th%20March%202012%281%29.pdf

    - RAND analysis explains how the different factors of CPFH are accounted for... if you suffer insomnia this will help  thumbsup

    https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1000756.pdf

    - Leaked report from the Swiss military about Rafale, Gripen etc. was referred in the forum as containing damning information against the operational costs of the Gripen. I have found nothing like that in the report:

    https://de.scribd.com/doc/81390363/Swiss-Air-Force-Confidential-Report-on-the-Evaluation-of-the-Eurofighter-the-Gripen-NG-and-the-Rafale

    Analysis based on available data for Western fighters

    There seems to be indeed a broad relation between weight of the fighter and its operational costs. I just used empty weights of modern western fighters and their CPFH as taken either from Janes or from official data. No trick needed to plot a trend, but also big exceptions are to be found (especially with the F-18, maybe USN does things differently to USAF?)

    Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH Chart_10

    The result goes in line with Janes report, which I ultimately recommend reading and think it can be a very reasonable first approach to the issue.

    Are single engine fighters proportionally cheaper than twin engine planes?

    Difficult to say, given the huge differences even between different squadrons in the same air force. Janes seems to think that to be the case:

    Increased CPFH of twin engine aircraft is attributable to factors other than increased fuel usage (est. ~25%)

    What indeed seems proven is that very light and basic planes are much cheaper than big and complex ones, the later being normally twin engine while the former being single engine. Logic says more pieces to be maintained (engines are the most maintenance intensive item on any plane) means higher costs, but by how much? A single-engined fighter can have an engine interval between overhaul of only 500 h while a twin engined fighter can have engines that only need a 1000 h interval, for instance. Again, the devil is in the details.

    Eastern vs. Western planes

    There seems to be a substantial difference between East and West regarding the maintenance costs of their fighters, maybe due to structural differences between their respective economies. The problem is that I have found lots of rumours but no official data:

    - Tarasenko from MiG said in 2019 that MiG-35 would be 20% cheaper over its life cycle than its competitors in the Indian MMRCA 2.0 competition:

    https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/indias-old-friend-russia-offers-to-transfer-technology-and-produce-mig-35-in-india-mig-ceo/1590224/

    - There are references to MiG-29 having an operational cost of $4500 per hour, but how then MiG-35 has reduced that 2.5 times?
    - JF-17 is rumoured to have hourly costs of just $4000
    - MiG-21 was also referred as having ridiculous operational costs and being extremely simple and sturdy:

    The MiG-21 has been called the AK-47 of airplanes. “Rock-solid airframe,” noted a former MiG 21 ground technician. “Really the thing only needs to be topped off with fluids and it just goes and goes.” When the U.S. Air Force operated MiG-21s as adversary aircraft combat trainers, they found them to be, in the words of one crew chief, “Just like your family car. As long as it’s full of fuel, you pull it out of the garage and start it up.” Maintenance typically consisted of changing the oil, brakes and tires after every 50 sorties. “With a set of home socket wrenches and screwdrivers, you could get a lot of maintenance done on the little jet,” said another crew chief. Even more important is the fact that a MiG-21bis can be had for $500,000. A secondhand F-16C can cost a small country $15 million.


    https://airpowerasia.com/2020/06/16/the-iconic-mig-21-great-design-most-produced-supersonic-jet-fearsome-reputation-unending-service/

    - As a way of checking what the operational costs of Russian air force can be, we know that there are (or rather were?) flights available to individuals, for a "reasonable" price. These flights are 30 min long and include interpreters, hotel nights and many other things, and the prices would be influenced not only by flight costs but also demand, but at least they can be used to find an upper limit for the cost of the flight hour, if we assume Russians would not bother organizing them to loose money. These were the costs per person as of 2012:

    Su-27: $17,700.00
    MiG-29: $14,000.00
    MiG-23: $8,690.00
    L-39: $3,100.00

    http://rusadventures.com/tour17.shtml

    I think we can reasonably assume CPFH would not be more expensive than this, since:

    - There is a substantial overhead in these costs due to all the additional expenses for the activity
    - The flight is pretty intensive in acrobatic manoeuvres which are tough on the engines and fuel consumption
    - I doubt a little more fuel could be so expensive for VKS to seriously distort the figures.

    Actually it is likely that they are substantially cheaper, but I didn't manage to get better data. Maybe I try with searches in Russian, I didn't do that yet.

    Hope somebody finds this interesting, I will post further data if I find them. And if anybody has better information, you are welcome to share it  Wink


    Last edited by LMFS on Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:32 am; edited 1 time in total
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25283
    Points : 25829
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH Empty Re: Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:04 am

    It is off topic but one of the biggest reductions in operational costs for the MiG-29 was when they changed their maintenance procedures from communist to non communist so to speak.

    For the Soviets the cost of maintenance was less important, and needing large numbers of men to maintain a plane or long hours were not a problem... the focus was that for 500-1,000 hours you just fill up the things that needed filling and got in and flew the plane without needing any checks or tests and without needing a university degree.

    That meant during a war or conflict all the aircraft not in overhaul would be available and ready to go.

    Obviously that came at a price.

    Maintenance was strict and very safe in regard to tolerances, so for instance during testing it was found that 15 parts of an engine had wear and while each would wear out at a different rate the idea is that between overhauls there needed to be no testing or expert analysis of parts or components...

    This meant that for a given engine one of the parts might last 2,000h before needing replacing and another part might need to be replaced every 2,500h, and 7 parts might need replacing every 2,000 to 3,000 hours depending on how the engine in used, and another 5 parts might need to be replaced after between 1,500 and 3,000 hours also depending on how the aircraft is flown.

    To be safe then the overhaul and replacement schedule would be 1,000 hours... all the parts that can wear out are replaced every 1,000 hours.

    That is very wasteful of parts and also means stripping down engines every 1,000 hours so it takes time but it means in a combat situation you only need to worry about battle damage.

    Parts that might be perfectly fine were discarded.

    The maintenance of the MiG-29 dramatically got cheaper with portable scanning equipment and onboard diagnostic equipment that would tell the ground crew if there was an electronic problem... computers and computer networks can have problems too of course... it is not just the engines.

    The point is that once they started changing the maintenance policy for peace time costs then the requirements for the support crew increased... they needed to be able to use portable scanners to detect cracks in engine blades, and parts started to get replaced only when they actually needed to be replaced.

    One thing that has not changed is that Russian pilots are not expected to "go easy" on the planes.

    In the west there are limits to manouvers and speeds and altitudes etc that aircraft can be used to prevent excessive wear and tear on the aircraft and their engines.

    Regarding that report about the Gripen... it repeatedly says it lacks the range and performance for their needs.. being the only single engined aircraft in consideration, that is no huge surprise.

    On page 14 it mentions Saab recommends spare parts pooling amongst all users to keep down costs... reliability or availability the Gripen scores better than Eurofighter...

    The fact that in pretty much every area the Rafale was best, Typhoon was second, and both were better than the base standard F-18 they currently operate and that the Gripen rated worse than the F-18 in every regard... even after being upgrade to its latest model type suggests that single engined fighters are also less capable than twin engined fighters perhaps?

    There is nothing in that document even mentioning operational costs, so perhaps it was another report... or another part of the report that perhaps SAAB managed to block the public release of...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1554
    Points : 1550
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH Empty Re: Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH

    Post  LMFS on Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:43 am

    GarryB wrote:To be safe then the overhaul and replacement schedule would be 1,000 hours... all the parts that can wear out are replaced every 1,000 hours.

    Well that seems a good strategy for wartime operations. It is even better if you can harmonize the life of the different parts, so you don't overspend in those that are always discarded even when in perfect conditions. What they have done is rather to improve those parts more exposed to wear, probably they have improved considerably their temperature tolerance. The new RD-33MK for instance has an operational life of 4000 hours and overhaul every 1000 hour, vs. 1600 and 800 respectively for the conventional RD-33.

    That alone should be substantial reduction in operational costs: 4000 / 1600 = 2.5, that is most probably the main reason behind that now famous claim of MiG-35 being 2.5 times cheaper. What we don't know is how much cheaper the regular RD-33 is compared to the MK...

    The maintenance of the MiG-29 dramatically got cheaper with portable scanning equipment and onboard diagnostic equipment that would tell the ground crew if there was an electronic problem... computers and computer networks can have problems too of course... it is not just the engines.

    Electric and electronic problems can be a pain in the *** if the technician is not quite competent (always difficult for complex systems) or lacks the equipment, in which case you just exchange everything, even when you don't know why, but cannot loose one week to diagnose a pathological case... but don't ask about the cost of the repair! Failures are always situations where systems don't do what they should and therefore tend to be quite "creative" and very time consuming to diagnose.

    That lack of complex systems is why the MiG-21 was dirt cheap and could be repaired in field with screwdriver and hammer, but no modern plane is ever going to be "affordable"  Very Happy

    The point is that once they started changing the maintenance policy for peace time costs then the requirements for the support crew increased... they needed to be able to use portable scanners to detect cracks in engine blades, and parts started to get replaced only when they actually needed to be replaced.

    Now with Su-57 they will be even more extreme, with that fiber optics system to diagnose the stress in the airframe, or those portable hangars to check the stealth coatings.

    Regarding that report about the Gripen... it repeatedly says it lacks the range and performance for their needs.. being the only single engined aircraft in consideration, that is no huge surprise.

    Well, it is hardly surprising that it has lesser capabilities than the two other. The plane is extremely small compared to the other two, how should it do the same? If they compared Rafale to Su-57 or F-22, it would also look a shitty plane... it depends on what requirements they have. So, if you try to set up a fighter force just based on one single platform, it is good that you don't go for the absolute smallest plane possible. If you have a heavy fighter taking care of the missions that demand range, payload and most powerful systems, then you can allow yourself to make up numbers with way cheaper platforms, 2:1 light : heavy seems to be the ideal proportion. What happens with European air forces that didn't have the money to develop a two-level fighter fleet (and they even split efforts instead of working together) is that they tried to solve everything with medium fighters with the price of heavy ones but without their capabilities, and ended up with very reduced numbers, because they didn't have the cheap light fighters to fill the gaps... a massive flop if you ask me...

    The fact that in pretty much every area the Rafale was best, Typhoon was second, and both were better than the base standard F-18 they currently operate and that the Gripen rated worse than the F-18 in every regard... even after being upgrade to its latest model type suggests that single engined fighters are also less capable than twin engined fighters perhaps?

    Hahaha, nice try  Razz

    It is only logical that the Rafale came on top of that competition, since it is a modern fighter, very well conceived, and designed specifically as multirole (omni-role they say), which was what the Swiss were evaluating. The Eurofighter is not multirole (BTW the report confirms cruise 1.4 M, which is a serious capability for air superiority) and the Gripen in simply tiny, it cannot carry the same fuel or the same payload, and logically in some aspects it will be even worse than the old F-18. It rates high in EW for instance, and they say that many of the improvements that Saab reported were not accepted because they needed capabilities which were current. Those capabilities were going to come at the expense of more weight and a more powerful engine. As said:

    1. You can create a plane, single engine or twin engine, with roughly the same TWR. Or at least I don't see a proof of the contrary. If you put two engines side by side you get more thrust but also more drag, in a single engine the same thrust will result in a longer aircraft but also a less draggy airframe. That explains perfectly the respective characteristics of F-16 and MiG-29 that we have discussed. The first is excellent in energy conservation (very low drag), the other in climb and turning rate (thrust and lift at the expense of more drag). Which one is better? It depends on what you want, but for a small multirole plane the first approach makes more sense to me.

    2. A light fighter needs to have simpler requirements compared to heavier ones. It is not a fault of the Gripen to be small and relatively simple, it is simply wishful thinking on the part of Switzerland to hope for medium or heavy fighter performance for the cost of a light one...

    There is nothing in that document even mentioning operational costs, so perhaps it was another report... or another part of the report that perhaps SAAB managed to block the public release of...

    They were actually quite pissed off with the French for getting this released just when their plane had been selected... I don't think they had the release of these documents under control at any time Razz
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25283
    Points : 25829
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH Empty Re: Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:13 am

    Well that seems a good strategy for wartime operations.

    When you produce the spare parts and you want work for your people then it is good, but many aircraft spend 99% of their time in peace time and it makes it rather inefficient, and also makes it less desirable to more sophisticated countries who dont want simple and cheap.

    When the parts you are throwing out after 1,000 hours contains complex titanium parts worth tens of thousands of dollars it is more of a problem... though they might be lasting 4,000 hours so you might save money by replacing them after every third overhaul...

    It is even better if you can harmonize the life of the different parts, so you don't overspend in those that are always discarded even when in perfect conditions.

    Or perhaps instead of discard, you inspect and analyse and repair if possible for reuse.


    That lack of complex systems is why the MiG-21 was dirt cheap and could be repaired in field with screwdriver and hammer, but no modern plane is ever going to be "affordable"

    The attempt of the F-16 was supposed to make things easier with modules, with modern computer systems where parts are added and removed, where software updates can fix problems and create more, or simply make the whole system stop working. The same problem is creeping into motor vehicles... John Deer make tractors but wont share information about their software and diagnostic systems, so if something is not working you have to send it to them to fix. Most of the time a laptop and a few minutes might find something is set up wrong or some component has failed, or is broadcasting rubbish which means other things are not working properly either.

    I remember when installing a computer game on an IBM type computer meant low level access to all sorts of things you don't worry about now... the operating system handles IRQ channels and sound card settings and the like. Back then the operating systems let you access the hardware directly and set ups could be stuffed up pretty easily. Newer OS manage that sort of thing themselves meaning vastly fewer blue screens...


    Well, it is hardly surprising that it has lesser capabilities than the two other. The plane is extremely small compared to the other two, how should it do the same?

    But hang on... you are saying that a single engined fighter is better than a twin engined fighter because it is lighter and smaller and cheaper... why are you also not saying that it is less capable and with much reduced performance?

    is that they tried to solve everything with medium fighters with the price of heavy ones but without their capabilities, and ended up with very reduced numbers, because they didn't have the cheap light fighters to fill the gaps... a massive flop if you ask me...

    So what you are trying to argue is that the Gripen should be bought in addition to either the Rafale or the Typhoon and used together by the air forces of Europe, because while it is not as good as either aircraft in most parameters, it is cheaper.

    What would happen if we adopted that concept in other places... this doctor is a woman... she is smaller and lighter and cheaper to pay than the male doctors... she is not as good but we can afford to have more of them... even if they are incompetent...

    It is only logical that the Rafale came on top of that competition, since it is a modern fighter, very well conceived, and designed specifically as multirole (omni-role they say), which was what the Swiss were evaluating.

    The Gripen is a modern fighter and we are talking about an upgraded model with over 90 changes from the standard model... was it poorly conceived... was it intended to replace lollypop ladies helping children across the road instead of being a modern fighter aircraft?

    The Eurofighter is not multirole (BTW the report confirms cruise 1.4 M, which is a serious capability for air superiority) and the Gripen in simply tiny, it cannot carry the same fuel or the same payload, and logically in some aspects it will be even worse than the old F-18. It rates high in EW for instance, and they say that many of the improvements that Saab reported were not accepted because they needed capabilities which were current. Those capabilities were going to come at the expense of more weight and a more powerful engine.

    But you go on to complain that the Eurofighter and Rafale are bigger heavier aircraft... their two engines means they should be high drag and therefore lower performance than the smaller lighter Gripen, but that is clearly not the case.

    I am quite a big heavy person but I don't work out, I don't have powerful muscles, but I have experienced situations where a strong wind was blowing and smaller lighter people were having difficulty standing up... they ended up walking behind me.  Size has advantages.

    Or at least I don't see a proof of the contrary. If you put two engines side by side you get more thrust but also more drag, in a single engine the same thrust will result in a longer aircraft but also a less draggy airframe.

    Yes, but what is the value of that drag reduction... none of these planes are bricks... and I would suggest their extra size and weight actually make them rather more effective platforms. Small size has a value, but not at the cost of serious loss of performance...

    That explains perfectly the respective characteristics of F-16 and MiG-29 that we have discussed. The first is excellent in energy conservation (very low drag), the other in climb and turning rate (thrust and lift at the expense of more drag). Which one is better? It depends on what you want, but for a small multirole plane the first approach makes more sense to me.

    In training with German MiG-29s the F-16s lost every time... they didn't have AMRAAM and R-73 was, together with its helmet mounted queing system, a vastly superior missile to the then standard Sidewinders. The difference in drag was irrelevant... the extra fuel the MiG can carry compensated for the extra drag, and in terms of flight performance the body lift from the twin engine trunks effectively forcing air flowing over the body of the aircraft and generating extra lift gives it advantage in manouver and cruising.

    2. A light fighter needs to have simpler requirements compared to heavier ones. It is not a fault of the Gripen to be small and relatively simple, it is simply wishful thinking on the part of Switzerland to hope for medium or heavy fighter performance for the cost of a light one...

    So small cheap fighters are shit fighters.... so why bother with cheap when it will also be ineffective?

    Sounds like the Heavy (Su-35/57) and Medium (MiG-29M2/-35), with cheap drones (S-70 and others) is a better solution than single engined light fighters.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1554
    Points : 1550
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH Empty Re: Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH

    Post  LMFS on Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:17 am

    GarryB wrote:Or perhaps instead of discard, you inspect and analyse and repair if possible for reuse.

    If you have the means and the time, of course.

    Newer OS manage that sort of thing themselves meaning vastly fewer blue screens...

    Electronics and SW are here to stay and for very good reasons, I am not going to question that. It does not mean that they are always going to be applied in the way which is best for reliability, or that they do not need lengthy debugging like happened with the maintenance system on the F-35. The problem with such systems is they are black boxes and without the right knowledge there is nothing a regular technician can do on them.

    But hang on... you are saying that a single engined fighter is better than a twin engined fighter because it is lighter and smaller and cheaper... why are you also not saying that it is less capable and with much reduced performance?

    I just agree on the concept of hi-lo mix where there are proper heavy fighters in moderate numbers and numerous fighters which are optimized for cost.

    So what you are trying to argue is that the Gripen should be bought in addition to either the Rafale or the Typhoon and used together by the air forces of Europe, because while it is not as good as either aircraft in most parameters, it is cheaper.

    See above, they should have something bigger than Rafale or Eurofighter and then something like F-16 or Gripen. With heavy planes doing the long range air superiority missions, the smaller ones would not need to be over-stuffed with pods, CFTs and systems that make them partially loose their original sense. It is an issue of flawed force planing, due probably to financial constraints. Instead of assuming high up-front costs, dilute them along many years with modernizations and upgrades to planes that, like it or not, are seriously restricted by their airframe.

    The Gripen is a modern fighter and we are talking about an upgraded model with over 90 changes from the standard model... was it poorly conceived... was it intended to replace lollypop ladies helping children across the road instead of being a modern fighter aircraft?

    It has a very sound aero design, but was made to meet Swedish requirements. And with its size it will obviously be hampered to have big persistence, do multiple passes on a ground target etc. Every job has its right tool and not everything needs the ultimate super expensive one.

    BTW this graphic is coherent with what I said, smaller size leads to disadvantages on persistence, detection range and some others. At a fraction of the operational cost and with the right backing it may be a sound decision to use it though:

    Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH Swiss_eval_AP1

    their two engines means they should be high drag and therefore lower performance than the smaller lighter Gripen, but that is clearly not the case.

    Never said that

    and I would suggest their extra size and weight actually make them rather more effective platforms.

    I said as much... in fact I think they should be bigger!

    Small size has a value, but not at the cost of serious loss of performance...

    It is going to mean loss of performance in several areas. As said the whole discussion has an economic background. Air forces have discovered that they can fulfil their missions with a cheaper mix of assets. You can see the numbers of heavy and light fighters most air forces have. Many countries still getting things done with MiG-21, MiG-23, JF-17, J-10, F-16, Mirage etc etc. Do you want to check the numbers? I am not making this up, it is a simple reality of the kind of compromises air forces choose to do.

    In training with German MiG-29s the F-16s lost every time... they didn't have AMRAAM and R-73 was, together with its helmet mounted queing system, a vastly superior missile to the then standard Sidewinders.

    ... which has nothing to do with the different layouts and propulsion concepts

    The difference in drag was irrelevant...

    Well it is not, each one used their advantages. This chart may well reflect the situation with those two planes, in a very simplified way:

    Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH 4a967adf8d1f3f28d8fb019733454678

    the extra fuel the MiG can carry compensated for the extra drag,

    That was one its main problems, it had very little fuel... as said before, its role was quite narrow as a point defence fighter with focus in TWR and manoeuvrability in a short fight at the expense of pretty much anything else. With the new family of MiG-29 they have been smart to expand the roles of the plane and give it more fuel. We don't have critical values like empty weight though, we would need them to compare its current performance

    and in terms of flight performance the body lift from the twin engine trunks effectively forcing air flowing over the body of the aircraft and generating extra lift gives it advantage in manouver and cruising.

    It is not really clear it has an advantage across the board, it may be better in some low speed manoeuvring (twin keels) but it has worse L/D than the F-16 and that affects the way it can keep speed during combat.

    Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH F16_vs10

    Excess power of the F-16 while turning is outstanding:

    Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH 16_vs_10

    If you want to go into the details of comparing F-16 and MiG-29 I think we can do it, since there is a lot of information about those planes available, including flight manuals, EM charts and so on. Some calculations are needed though, since altitudes and fuel weights need to be accounted for and are not always the same for both in the charts.

    My point was that the layout of the F-16 is more suitable for a general purpose fighter than a very specific one like the original MiG-29 as it is more efficient. Today's requirements include high AoA performance which means two vertical stabilizers and stealth so the layout would not be directly applicable and the size should grow a bit, but it is still a good example of a very well optimised plane that performs well on many missions.

    Sounds like the Heavy (Su-35/57) and Medium (MiG-29M2/-35), with cheap drones (S-70 and others) is a better solution than single engined light fighters.

    That is probably what is going to happen in Russia, but that is easy to predict, since those are the planes that they have. It does not mean other solutions may be even better, if Russia had not already invested their resources on the MiG-29 and the "industrial ecosystem" around it. At some point they decided to change from single engine (MiG-21 - MiG-23) to twin engine (MiG-29) for the short ranged fighters too and that of course has an impact on what is available today to work with.

    BTW back to the thread's topic, did you read the cost analysis by Jane's? Do you basically agree with their conclusions?

    Sponsored content

    Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH Empty Re: Operational costs of modern fighters - CPFH

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:11 am