Janes - News page

Know the threat

Impartial perspective on military capabilities, terrorism and insurgency and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats.

Threat Intelligence

Know the location

Build a clear picture for military operations or market knowledge through smart geospatial layers.

Country Intelligence

Know the opportunity

Trusted, connected data and unique insight that enables growth in a complex and reshaping industry.

Defence Industry Intelligence

Know the detail

Connected, structured equipment data that delivers unique insights.

Equipment Intelligence

US think-tank proposes cost-per-effect metric for better weapon system cost analysis

by Pat Host

The US Air Force (USAF) should adopt a cost-per-effect metric for weapon systems to maximise mission value instead of relying on simplistic metrics such as unit cost or cost per flying hour, according to a Washington, DC, think-tank.

The Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, in a report released on 8 July, said this cost-per-effect metric is necessary to better measure the enterprise expense associated with accomplishing missions. A cost-per-effect assessment measures the sum of what it takes to achieve a desired mission result, not just a single system’s acquisition and support costs that would lack necessary context surrounding the capability’s actual use.

A pair of F-35As fly in formation on 15 May 2019. The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies argues in a new report that the USAF adopting a cost-per-effect metric for assessing weapon systems would better analyse weapon system value than traditional metrics such as unit price.  (US Air Force)

A pair of F-35As fly in formation on 15 May 2019. The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies argues in a new report that the USAF adopting a cost-per-effect metric for assessing weapon systems would better analyse weapon system value than traditional metrics such as unit price. (US Air Force)

Cost-per-effect includes mission aircraft to execute the actual task and direct supporting assets, including aerial refuelling tankers, electronic jamming platforms, and surface-to-air missile suppression efforts. It also includes aircrews and requisite infrastructure such as basing and related maintenance support.

For example, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) and Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider long-range strike bombers and other advanced weapon systems may appear more costly on a per-unit basis than less capable legacy aircraft designs. The think-tank argues enterprise assessments illustrate the potential of these modern aircraft to complete mission objectives more efficiently and capably, thereby lowering their overall operational expense. This would make them a more cost-effective option.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/us-think-tank-proposes-cost-per-effect-metric-for-better-weapon-system-cost-analysis/

The US Air Force (USAF) should adopt a cost-per-effect metric for weapon systems to maximise mission...

US think-tank proposes cost-per-effect metric for better weapon system cost analysis

by Pat Host

The US Air Force (USAF) should adopt a cost-per-effect metric for weapon systems to maximise mission value instead of relying on simplistic metrics such as unit cost or cost per flying hour, according to a Washington, DC, think-tank.

The Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, in a report released on 8 July, said this cost-per-effect metric is necessary to better measure the enterprise expense associated with accomplishing missions. A cost-per-effect assessment measures the sum of what it takes to achieve a desired mission result, not just a single system’s acquisition and support costs that would lack necessary context surrounding the capability’s actual use.

A pair of F-35As fly in formation on 15 May 2019. The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies argues in a new report that the USAF adopting a cost-per-effect metric for assessing weapon systems would better analyse weapon system value than traditional metrics such as unit price.  (US Air Force)

A pair of F-35As fly in formation on 15 May 2019. The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies argues in a new report that the USAF adopting a cost-per-effect metric for assessing weapon systems would better analyse weapon system value than traditional metrics such as unit price. (US Air Force)

Cost-per-effect includes mission aircraft to execute the actual task and direct supporting assets, including aerial refuelling tankers, electronic jamming platforms, and surface-to-air missile suppression efforts. It also includes aircrews and requisite infrastructure such as basing and related maintenance support.

For example, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) and Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider long-range strike bombers and other advanced weapon systems may appear more costly on a per-unit basis than less capable legacy aircraft designs. The think-tank argues enterprise assessments illustrate the potential of these modern aircraft to complete mission objectives more efficiently and capably, thereby lowering their overall operational expense. This would make them a more cost-effective option.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/us-think-tank-proposes-cost-per-effect-metric-for-better-weapon-system-cost-analysis/

The US Air Force (USAF) should adopt a cost-per-effect metric for weapon systems to maximise mission...

More sea news

US think-tank proposes cost-per-effect metric for better weapon system cost analysis

by Pat Host

The US Air Force (USAF) should adopt a cost-per-effect metric for weapon systems to maximise mission value instead of relying on simplistic metrics such as unit cost or cost per flying hour, according to a Washington, DC, think-tank.

The Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, in a report released on 8 July, said this cost-per-effect metric is necessary to better measure the enterprise expense associated with accomplishing missions. A cost-per-effect assessment measures the sum of what it takes to achieve a desired mission result, not just a single system’s acquisition and support costs that would lack necessary context surrounding the capability’s actual use.

A pair of F-35As fly in formation on 15 May 2019. The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies argues in a new report that the USAF adopting a cost-per-effect metric for assessing weapon systems would better analyse weapon system value than traditional metrics such as unit price.  (US Air Force)

A pair of F-35As fly in formation on 15 May 2019. The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies argues in a new report that the USAF adopting a cost-per-effect metric for assessing weapon systems would better analyse weapon system value than traditional metrics such as unit price. (US Air Force)

Cost-per-effect includes mission aircraft to execute the actual task and direct supporting assets, including aerial refuelling tankers, electronic jamming platforms, and surface-to-air missile suppression efforts. It also includes aircrews and requisite infrastructure such as basing and related maintenance support.

For example, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) and Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider long-range strike bombers and other advanced weapon systems may appear more costly on a per-unit basis than less capable legacy aircraft designs. The think-tank argues enterprise assessments illustrate the potential of these modern aircraft to complete mission objectives more efficiently and capably, thereby lowering their overall operational expense. This would make them a more cost-effective option.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/us-think-tank-proposes-cost-per-effect-metric-for-better-weapon-system-cost-analysis/

The US Air Force (USAF) should adopt a cost-per-effect metric for weapon systems to maximise mission...

Loading animation

Request a free consultation to find out how in a world of fake news and ever growing conflict, Janes can provide you with unbiased, verified open-source intelligence.

News Janes | The latest defence and security news from Janes - the trusted source for defence intelligence