Nailonti Foreign Assessment Center
Soviet Military Aircraft Maintenance
Aa InttllltaK* AotsunMl
! !
Information available as9 was used In ihe preparation of this report.
author o/ this paper is
fice of
Research. Com menu and queries are welcome f ' 1 *H
This paper was coordinated with the National Intelligence Officer for General Purpose Forces.
BLANK PAGE
This paper is an outgrowth of ongoing cfToni by the
Strategic Research to estimate the annual costs of Soviet defense. Valoing ibe USSR's military activity in monetary terms his led us toarcs data base from which we cull the salient c'tiracterisllcs of Soviet defense programs. In this pr xess, wc frequeally gain special insightsa rticular program or activity and are able toc overview of Its operation. Often this Informa-ttti is of interest to the Intelligence Community for reasons beyond its value in supporting our expenditure estimates- This report is one of these overviews. (
-
BLANK PAGE
Soviet MilitaryAircraft Maintenance ^
lew
Soviet military aircrafi maintenance system is characterized by:
philosophy thai emphasizes regular preventive maintenance, replace-ment rather than field repair of defective parti and components, periodic rebuilding of entire airframes and engines, specialization by maintenance personnel, and conservative scheduling of maintenance. This is similar to the maintenance philosophy for most other major items of Soviet military
and civilian equipment.
operations that are strictly keyed to extremely conservative spedfications. The Soviets purposely keep maintenance intervals short and adhere to them rigidly to minimize premature failures and to simplify
maintenance planning.
highly structured maintenance organization that is characterized by extreme specialization of tasks and the performance of all complexrear-area plants and factories.
By emphasizing narrow specialization and directing major repair work to assembly-line plants in rear areas, the Soviets have solved some of the problems inherent in maintaining high-rer forma nee jet aircraft that might otherwise have plagued them. In particular, they have adapted their military aircraft maintenance system to the mass-production orientation of their economy and to the constraints arising from their reliance on short-tenured conscripts to manercent of their air and air defense forces.
Although the ruggedness and technical simplicity of most Soviet mililary aircraft lend to make them relatively easy lo maintain, ihe Soviets' conservative approach to maintenance, with its emphasis on frequent and extensive overhauls for airframes and engines, makes the system very costly. We estimate lhat: I i 1
9 the Soviet Ministry of Defense will spendercent of its estimated defense budget lo maintain aircraft.
Expressed in terms of8 prices as paid by the US Department of Defense. Soviet mililary aircraft maintenance mightillion dollars. This is roughly double the amount the US Air Force might need to maintain (with current USimilarIs, one with comparable numbers of aircraft, technical characteristics, and operating rates.
Stent
The Soviet military aircraft maintenance system appears to operate well enough in peacetime to guarantee commanders the level of readiness they desire. The system, nevertheless, seems to reflect the Soviet view that any major conflict would be intense and brief.
Its inherent conservatism and redundancy regularize the flow ofwork and ensure that an adequate number of combat-reudy aircraft will be on line at any time.
The brief intervals between major maintenance, combined withlow operatingno more than one-half the rates for comparable USAFthat most Soviet aircraft within combat units are relatively new or freshly overhauled and. thus, far from the point where mechanical failure could be expected.
The high level of readiness of combat aircraft and the large front-line inventories of aircraft and spare parts probably make the Soviet maintenance system adequate lo support Ihe first few weeksartime surge.
rotracted war with high attrition rnies and disrupted supply lines, the rear orientation of the system would probablyiability. Soviet air regiments by themselves lack the capability lo handle ihe heavy flow of complex repair tasks thai would result from battle damage.
1
|ii
Cos tests
; 1
i1
ti .
1 I
is; :
:
f : (
1
I*
It
lVf
I j ll
; !
! '
' 1
1
Arte
1i
and Structure of the Soviet Military Aircrafi Maintenance System
1
1
Cost Planniof
Maintenance Costs
A.
Soviet Mililary Aircraft Maintenance
and Maintenance Norms for Sovicl Military Aircraft
fares
Maintenance Technicianslinder
i
Costs of Soviet Military Aircraft. in Rubles
Costs ofSovtet Military Aircraft. in8 Dollars
SorirtMUitory ircraft MabKennce |_
ucturr of (be So-k.
Military Aircraft Makteaaec* Systtti
'*' I Ii Af/oseyAy
The Soviet maintenance philosophy for aircraft is similar to that for other major items of military equipment. The Soviet armed forces emphasize regular preventive maintenance, replacement rather thanof defective components and parts, periodic rebuilding of entire airframes and engines,by maintenance personnel, and relatively frequent scheduled maintenance and overhaub,|
Ptcttwrive Mail wet. The Soviets emphasizetechnical servicing and preventive maintenance for sevcial reasons. These arc, of course, essential to maintaining equipmentroper state of readiness. In addition, Soviet aircraft require more routine "fiddling" (checking, lubrication, and adjustment) than do most US aircraft of similar performance and mission. This results in part from quality control problems in their manufacture and the greater use of mechanical, rather than automated and solid state, assemblies and controls. In addition, the Sovietdocs not appear to fed the manpower constraints experienced by most Western armed forces.arge body of conscripts to be kept occupied, busyn advantageous tool for familiarization and train-
Replacement Rather Thae Repair. Preference for replacement over repair,rge extent, follows from the structure and organization of the Soviet economy, which favors the performance of complex mechanical work at large, specialized, factory-like plants. The Soviet mililary shares this preference, because replace-ment of parts (whether defective or at the ends of Iheir service lives) requires leu discretionary judgment (and, usually, less technical skill) on the pert of regimental maintenance personnel than trying to fix them.n advantageargely conscriptedmake up aboutercent of the
Soviet air and air defenseshort termsand limited tirining opportunities.rather than repair also helps to ensureof equipment and makes forplanning of maintenance requirements. {
Rebuilding. In keeping with Marxist-Leninistthe Soviets view the periodic overhaul of capital equipment (including aircraft)emanufacturing process, which restores an item's original productive value. Soviet mililary planners sec iheir capital repair programeans of making sure that all equipment has its original productivein military terms, is to be combat ready. |
Soviet overhaul practices ran counter to the US philosophy of not tampering wiih things that work properly and of restricting overhaul to components thai aciually need it The cosily Soviet practice would not be tolerated in most Western economics, but it seems lo pose fewIheS mililary point of view, ihe mandatory periodic rebuilding of an aircraft would be regarded as inefficient, financially wasteful, and probably danger-
Specialization. The Soviet armed forces stressof tasks and the development of narrowly focused technical proficiency of maintenanceMaintenance and overhaul units areccording to specialty into separate shops and task groups, and maintenance technicians arc encouraged by their commanders. Ihe military press, and the party lo become masters of their jobs. Maintenance manuals for Soviet aircraft outline in minute detail when and how all procedures are to be performed. Rigid svhed-ules leave little room for discretion on it: part of maintenance personnel as to whether components should be repaired or replaced. Complex components
removed from the aircraft, crated, and either icnt lot repair plant or returned to tbe factory for servicing and overhaul Factory technician! are lometlmei brought into tbe regiment or the repair plant lo help with particularly complex or sensitive maintenance tasks, especially those on new aircraft models. The cumulative thrust of this stress on speculiratido is to simplify the maintenance process.
Scheduling. Soviet military aircraft maintenance schedules are set very conservatively. Comparison of maintenance and replacement Intervals for military aircraft with those for like-model civilian aircraft indicates thai the Soviet armed forces employ shorter intervals and enforce them more rigidly. In part, this may be an attempt to tailor the maintenance frequency to the military 's_high sortie rates and more rigorous flight profiles.
In any event, the Soviets seldom seem to find it necessary to replace components before theirtimes for inspection orhis eliminates much uncertainty in the maintenance planningsimplifies repair tasks for regimentalpersonnel, and helps minimize unanticipated downtime resulting from premature
Categories
The Soviet military defines four categories of aircraft maintenance: routine (or current) repair, technical servicing and inspection, medium repair, and capital repair. These categories are similar for vehicles, land arms, ships, and aircraft.^
Routine Repair and Technical Servicing. Rouline repair refers lo Ibe adjustment, repair, andof components and assemblies that break down in day-to-day operations. It includes replacement of components that fail before the expiration of their service lives or before they reach ihe lime for scheduled removal and overhaul. Routine repair is performed as needed, usually al the same time as the scheduled inspections and technical servicing of tbe aircraft.
1 iv military dmpremamr* fallaraa: iMr mala InirrvaU.ara ta ikon (hit prematura falttirta ara atldomnd oficn can Mconcciadnormal,malntcnaoc* aeuoaa. Q
In contrast, technical servicinglannedaction. It consists of ihe periodic servicing, calibration, and lubrication performed at specified intervals in conjunction wilh detailed inspections of the aircrafi and its main components. Because routine repair and technical servicing are performedSoviet maintenance planners group them
Mediean aad Capital Repair.s srrdnyy remom (or. for aircrafi, sometimes profilakticheskiyyreplacementimited number of principal components, which are subsequently overhauled (if lime remains on their service lives) or scrapped Althoughistinct categoryinorrepair of Soviet aircraft,in the military, has gradually become merged with routine repair and technical servicing. Ai present, it is normally performed in conjunction with the last major inspection conducted at the airfield (although, for civilian aircraft and non-Soviet Warsaw Paci military aircrafi. it is frequently still doneepair
Capitaltovnyv remont (or kaplialnyya major overhaul and rebuilding of an aircraft or an engine and the replacement of all components whose service lives have expired. Unlike mediumfor mililary aircraft, hasnit-level component exchangecapital repair is always performed al the factoryepair plant and consists of an extensive reworking of all systems.
Modernlratioaanaln both military and civil aviation, the Soviets consider modern ira lion and modification lo be an integral pan of ihc aircraft maintenance program. During routine maintenance and overhaul, technicians strive to enhance ihcand maintainability of the aircraft by installing up-to-date replacement parts and iricorpo-rating, wherever feasible, the latest design features specified by the manufacturer. The Soviet mililary regards this process as critically important for I
Secret
rrradificaiioni,thatalter the performance or mission capabililiesivennot considered part ofIf such alterations are made, the Sovietsredesignate tbe aircraftifferent
I it
Norms
Resoarce aad Servlc* lilt. With the exceptkxi of current repair, most Soviet aircraft maintenance operations are performedjord wilh strictkeyedesiinated "resource" {rtsurs) and "service life" for each major component of the aircraft. The rtsurs is the equivalent of the US "time before overhaul"he service life Is the total time that an item can remain in sue: it is calculated to be somewhat less than the time when the item would normally fail and be unrepairable, j
The Soviets specify the rtsurs (TBO) and service life in operating hours and chronological age. The TBOs and service lives vary from one aircraft model to another. These norms determine precisely when all major maintenance operations arc performed and components arc exchanged. The schedule for technical servicing and inspection, however, is more nearly uniform for all aircraft
I i
TBOs and servkx lives for aircraft and engines arc set at the factory and are guaranteed by the manufacturerritten warranty.ewly introduced aircraft model, these are set extremely low. As the production run lengthens and maintenance histories accumulate, the factory gradually lengthens the TBO and service lifen increase in these norms will apply to all units in thai model run. irrespective of when they werethe condition that the servicing and overhaul of each aircraft have been kept up to date. This condition ensures lhat the aircraft will have undergone all appropriate modificalions; if it has not, liberalized maintenance norms couldangerous strain on unmodified components.
Not to be CMfMcd Mk tfck trend ol aradaalrr lacreatnae. TtOi and aemce lim darini the productionircraftbe phenomenon of dccraaiine. timeeii overhaul* for anrcraft.an aire rati or enilne proartaieau lervice life the iniicipaled mean limafeilarea iUr*ij become* ihioricrcuR ol normal mechanicalaad pt oareurrc maul fai!:we The Sonera appear lo alto* for the Imreasina likelihood of bmkdow" by keeping the rtiunat an item low end alio b> Luerporailni arani*0
Soviet TBO and service life norms are set on the basis of theoretical testing and actual maintenanceThese norms are principally functions of design, materials, and quality control. Q is
The Soviets recognize that certain design bureaus and factories turn out better products than others. Among engines for fighter aircraft, foi example, thoseby Tumanskiy are most highly regarded, and our analysis indicates thai TBOs and service lives for engines from that bureau are usually longer than those for comparable engines from other
Materials and quality control appear to be even more important. The Soviets still suffer from technological shortcomings in such areas as metallurgy, bonding, and composites, which place limitations on thelives of their aircraft. Likewise. Soviethave found that the TBO and service life norms for theirare usually quite low by Westernoften be doubled or tripled if they simply upgrade workmanship and quality inspection. Often an aircraft manufacturer will offer two versions of the same product, which differ only in the quality control exercised in their manufacture. The version with the belter workmanship has an increased servicea higher price.
Manufacturerstake in keeping norms for service lives and TBOs set conservatively. Theytheir products to perform to Ihesc norms. If premature failure occurs, the manufacturer is rcipor-siWe for damages and may. if the aircraft was produced for the military, be subjecttiff One. Q
On the other hand. Soviel planners are well aware that short TBOs and service lives reduce aircraftand thus diminish military readiness. Since the, the Soviets hiveoncerted effort to lengthen maintenance and replacement intervals, primarily by using more durable materials andbelter quality standards.
Planet of. In planning for technical servicing end capital repair, ihe Soviet! differentiate between the aircraftincludes Ihe airframe, avionics, andils engines. They do so because Marxian economics daises them as discrete items of productive capital. Consequently, each air-craft has two separate master maintenance schedules: one for the engine or engines and one for everythinghese two schedules are not always fullyactor which probably results in some unnecessary downtime. There is little indication that ihe Soviets see thisroblem.*^
Apart from the peculiarities of Soviethereractical reason for having separate aircraft and engine maintenance schedules: Ihc diiparity between the two in service lives and required maintenance frequencies. Normally, the Soviets figure the service life of an engine to beoercent of thai of the airframe. Inypical airframe may be allowed five or moreut the engines are seldom permitted more than two oroviet aircraft that la!lihe end of its service life (and most of them probably do) will usually require at least five separate engines (as cither direct replacements or maintenance spares) for each of its engine beds. |
TBOs and service lives, as previously noted, are set in terms of both calendar years and operating hours. Calendar years arc important because deterioration and metal fatigue are aggravated by age, but. for most aircrafi. annual operating hour! are the crucialfor determining when ihc various types ofare performed. For an airframe, the operating rate equals hours spent in flight. For an engine, the operating rale includes not only flying time bui also lime spent running on thein warmup or servicing.igh-performanx fighter, the norms are sei in regular operating hours and afterburner
' Thealio foUow acparatc lubKhcdelct for major compc-nrnuat ihc electrical truem aad lac radar, but ibex are rowrarty adiaitedit lalo Ibe mailer Khedelc for Ihe airframe.
oncerr. I. Ihc^*cd
Cher major cental! can oe eh.na^ on
,h* opcr.Sng level. Whereor example. *hoie
the uvlase-i. appear, lhat a
V
Secret
to mch ihe aircrafi aad
ii- 1 :
The Soviets recognize lhai operating hour! alone are not always the best indicator of when maintenance should be performedodern, turbinc-engined aircraft. Particularly for military aircraft which fly frequent, high-performance sorties, the frequency of takeoffs and number of engine cycles arc alsoIn recent years, for example, the US Air Force has begun to set maintenance schedules geared lo these measurements. Soviet military and civil aviationhowever, cling to operating hours as theof the maintenance schedule but take mission profile! and sortie rales into consideration when they compute them Soviet maintenance schedules,do indirectly reflect the nu.nber of takeoffsarticular aircraftiven role. In addition, cabling maintenance schedules (in operating hours) arc already drawn conservatively enough lo ensure (hat aircrafi usually arc serviced before mechanical trouble develop*.
OrtanizmiioH
Air Regirtwntv For the Sovici military, the air regiment constitutes the basic fighting andunit. The regiment organize! its operaiionscries of alternating flying and servicing days, with detailed planning doneeekly basis. Aircrafi maintenance, up through medium repair, is performed by the regiment under the supervision of theengineerieutenantho is also deputy commander for aviation engineering services.
Q _ j ;
The regimental maintenance organizationiered system in which one echelon supports another.and repair lhat cannot be wrformed by one level are passed up to the next.'-
An air regiment is divided into three flying squadronsechnical exploitation unit, referred to as thehe TECh typically is commandedajor who reports directly to the regimental engineer. It is the primary maintenance arm of the regiment and is organized into separate shops for the repair of engines, armament, safety cquipmcnl. electricalradios and radar, and, where appropriate, photo-
reconnaissance equipment. The TECh li responsible for performing major inspections, medium repair, and current repair that lower echelons ennot handle- It*an aircraft cannot be taken to TECh facilities, the TECh can organize portions of It* crewsobile maintenance group, known as therans-ported in vans) |
Each flying squadron consistslightinto four flights)echnical branch.headedaptainwho reports to both the squadronthe regimentalorganized likeTECh. with separate crews forelectrical equipment, and radios
Oierhaul Plants. The capital repair of engines and aircraft is performed boih at the factories where they were produced andcries of aircraft and engine repair plants run by Ihe Ministry of Defense and located throughout the USSR. On occasion, military aircraft are overhauled at civilian-run repair plants, and civil on craft may be overhauled in military facilities. J I
The Ministry of Defense overhaul plants, lhough commanded by uniformed mililary personnel, arc staffed primarily by civilian lechnicians. They arc probably operated on anbasis. Each Soviet air armyumber of ihesc plants subordinate to it. with each plant specializing in the repairarticular type of aircraft (for example, fighters, bombers,side from doing capital repair, these plants also perform specialized repairs and modifications thai arc beyond the capability of air regiment maintenance staffs
FJTeelitueit
In peacetime the Soviet aircraft maintenance system seems to operate well enough to guarantee mililary comma rtdets the level of readiness they desire.rotracted war. the system could prove vulnerable.
radar. The squadron technicalto be confused wilh the regimentalresponsible for minor current repair and technical servicing,
The flights arc composed of flying teams and servicing teams. Each servicing team usually consists of an officer whose rank is equal to that of the flight team pilotieutenant or senior lieutenant) and at least two technicians. The maintenance team (or crew) is responsible for the preflight and postflighiand preparation of the aircraft in the regimental inventory to which It is
Air Technicalililary airfield isby an air technical battalionhe obaio is organizationally dislirci from the air regiment and performs functions separate from those of themaintenance organization. The responsibilities of the obaio are logistic and personnel support:of facilities, runways, and vehicles; provision of food, medical, and noosing services; and management of supplies and spare pans. In general, the obaionot involved directly in the maintenance of aircraft, but its logistic work is an essential prerequisite to the proper functioning of Ihe regimental maintenance organiza-lion.Q
1 Unlike ibe sitMiion In ihe US Airenlisted personnel supervise end perform rinull) sJI hnneV-on mi miens nortamnslitsoacd end ntrrani officers oftenconscript lecbnicUnsinpetforrnlnievcn routine USks
The Krvicing and replacement of component* in advance of expected failure and at intervals shorter than required by normal wear may seem inefficient by US standards, but il probably assures the Sovietsufficient number of serviceable aircraft will be available when required. Tbe system helps keep premature aircraft failuresinimum and, thereby, makes maintenance operations predictable and simple. When the conservative maintenance norms are coupled wilh tbe intentionally low annual opcrat-ing rates for most Soviet militaryno more than one-third to one-half the rates forUS militaryensure thai the Sovietsombat-ready fleet of relatively new and recently overhauled aircraftaroint where mechanical failure might occur!
The quality of Soviet regimental maintenanceseems to be more than adequate for their assigned tasks. The Soviets emphasize both professionalism and expertise to their maintenanceappear lo get it. Limitations inherent in ihe use of short-tenured conscripts arc compensated for by the functional compart men la lion of the maintenanceand the routinittd, cookbook nature of most maintenance operations. The Soviet practice ofmaintenance teams, parallel to tbe flying teams, responsible for particular aircraft appears toood way of ensuring personal accountability for servicing and repair work. Such accountability is necessaryofficialpersonnel arc held in lower esteem than their flying colleagues, and they appear to sufferack of hands-on training before their assignment to line robs.
In the event of wc. the organization of the Soviet aircraft maintenanceits many tiers and ils concentration of specialbts and specializedin rear-area repaircause aof susiainability, particularly ifsupply lines were cut and the conflictor moreew weeks. Although trained and equipped well enough for rouiine, peacetime tasks, the regimental maintenance organiration is probabiy not adequate for handling the heavy flow of unpredictable and complex repair jobs
that might arise during an extended period of warfare. Then the Soviet dependence on rear support for major maintenanceinitially offset by the sheer magritude of the military air order of
prove toerious liability
NATO-typo conflict that was not swiftly
Coal ImplicitlOM
Malatenamtr Cm Plmaiag The Soviet armed forces, we believe, calculate the annual costs of maintaining their aircraft fleet in much the same fashion as civil aviation enterprises likeheiroife-cycle cost estimate for each aircraft at Ihe time of itsand then to adjust this estimate annually to account for changes in operating rates, technical characteristics, maintenance norms, and the price of spare parts. Q
In the Soviet approach, ihc amount budgeted annually tc maintain an aircraft ban even share of the lifetime cost of providing inspections, technical servicing, current repair, and overhaul for Its airframe, avionics, and engine*costs are estimatedixed percentage olrocurement price (or average wholesale valuation when new) of the aircrafi. Total maintenance cost becomes,unction of the type. sire, and complexity of ihc aircrafi. its annual operating rate, its service life, and the lime norms governing its maintenance. The procurement cost of thesed as an index of its complexity. By current US standards, thisalid way to estimate maintenanceit differs considerably from the method lhat is now in use in Ibe US Air
mniianceplanning factor* ire peculiar to .ireraft model, t* rok and ml-lem. and ihe theater of opera ion. .here Ii. Annual flying iLmell Ihe prtnopal Independent variable ta she US
We have approximated ihe Soviet maintenance cost estimating relationships (CERs) by using dataIn Soviet open-source treatises on the economics of air transport and combining il with informationSatoregtteavataaf iteSavtacaa
eatlmailniTypically. USAFmarmrtai
provided by all-source intellifcnco on Soviel mililary aircraft and (heiromparison of tbe results provided by our CERs with actual maintenance costs reported by the Soviet military confirms lhat our CER approximations are generally reliable estimators of the actual costs of mililary aircraft maintenance in the]
EstimMtd Klsinirnaxce CoitS
Our reconstruction of the CERs probably used by the Soviets suggests that9 the USSR will spendillion rubles' for mililary aircraft main;en-ance. This amount includes all direct and indirect expenses associated with maintaining the aircraft in the Soviet order of bailie except expenses forperscincl and fuels and lubricantsf all the Soviets* maintenanceilitary aircralt maintenance appears to carry the highest price tag. It amounts tocrceni of the Soviet Union's likely defense spending
Our estimates indicate lhat Ihe annual cost of military aircraft maintenance has nearly doubled sinceat an average rale ofcrceni annually (sechis rapid increase has resultedteady growth in the number of aircraft in the Soviet inventory and their technical complexity. We expect this trend lo continue over the nexl five
years,
i i >
Comparison With US Costs. Another way of looking al Ihe annual Soviet military aircraft maintenance bill is to translate it into dollar costs: what It might cost the US Department of Defense to maintain the Soviet air inventory as the Soviets do. Converting oarSoviet CERs8 dollar terms by use of composite ruble-dollar ratios, we estimate that Soviel military aircraft maintenance will requireillion dollars In3 billion dollars more lhan it required
This dollar estimate enabled us to compare the maintenance norms and procedures of the Soviet armed forces wilh those of the US armed forces in
' Eaarea nod
Estimated Costs of;
Soviet Military Aircraft Maintenance,
In8 US Dollars :
.6 dcJUra
e -
I.
Costs estimated uling Soviet maintenance norma and coal aotimating rtUlionshi
Coats estimated using US Aif Force maintenance norma and cost planning tacica
I
The irenda deputed nave bean emoothed.
accordinghe USAF maintenance philosophy and practices. Tbe upper line indicates the trend we derived by applying Sovietomparison done in dollar cost terms must be treated with caution because several technical considerations may tend toIhe costThe comparison,highlights the relative:costliness of the Soviet maintenance system.
As estimated by USAF cost planning factors, Soviel military aircraft maintenance costs growittleillion1 dollars9 to moreillion dollars byaverage annual increase of3 to4 percent As estimated by our Soviet CERs. the average annual rate of growth Is 6double thai implied by the US cost estimators. The Soviet CERs alsoost series that is, on the average,oercent higher in level than that derived by the US planning factors. Q ;
Reasons for Cost Differences. The more costly nature of the Soviel military aircraft maintenance system is best explained by the extremely conservative Soviet maintenance norms and the short service liveswith the Soviet airframes and engines. Soviet military aircraft receive more major overhaulsuch shorter time than do their USAF counterparts. In addition. Soviet capital repair practices usuallyore extensive and. therefore, more costly overhaul than do US practices. These considerations more lhan offset savings in maintenance costs which mighl accrue to the Soviets because of their low annual operating rates, their assembly-line approach toand the general ruggedness and simplicity of their equipment,
The Soviet maintenance system also contains hidden costs that are not directly captured in our estimates of annual maintenance expense. The Soviet emphasis on frequent replacement of componcnis and factory overhauls requires that air regiments have large slocks of readily available spare aircraft and replacement parts. This wises nol only the annual level of required
For example, the Internal price structures of Ihe US and the USSR are di! ferent: the US cost planum factorsve -ere developed for .pacificaircraft models, -heres. the Soritl CF.Ra are mora ,cncial: and (he US cost ptannina factors may includeoverhead items.
investment in new aircraft but also the overhead emu of holding the inventor) of spares. In addition,oviet norms specify what often amounts to redundant maintenance. Although this practice doea seem to minimize serious premature failures, too frequent disassembly and maintenance of otherwise serviceable components can weaken them and can increase the risk of foreign object'i ,
Oetloc*
There are no indications that Soviet militaryarc dissatisfied with their aircraft maintenanceguiding philosophy and structure representof their World War II experience andto their clear perception of the realitiesSoviet economy and armed forcessystem is consistent with the Sovietfor most other major equipmenttbe view that any major conflictbe brief bat intense. In short, the Sovietscomfortable with the syitcmand find that it works
Consequently, we expect the Soviets to continue tomodify their military aircraft maintenance system only incrementally. They appear to be contemplating two of these minor alterations, probablyesponse lo Ihe increasing mechanical and electronic complexity of military aircraft. Onelight loosening of the strict specialization of maintenance personnel; they are beginning to emphasize the cross-training ofin at least two separate tasks. The other change is an increase in the amount and sophistication of teal and repair cquipmcnl located In regimentalcomponents. Wc believe thai the system will accommodate both changes slowly and without special
Although the Soviet military aircraft maintenance system wovld be extremely expensive lo duplicate in the United States,s probably quite efficient by Soviet standards. Il provides an unusually high degree of materiel readiness despite the constraints imposed by Ihe Soviet economy. The centralization and rear orientation of the system create important economies of scale by avoiding unnecessary duplication ofequipment and skilled personnel, both of which are scarce resources in ihc Soviet Union. In severalemphasis on conservative maintenance norms, the assembly-line handling of major repair tasks, and the use of large inventories of aircraft and spare components to offset limited ability at the unit level for complex repairsystem capitalizes on ihc production capability of the Soviet aviation industry while minimizing ihc impact of quality-control problems. Finally, the highly structured nature of the system is well adapted to the stringentof Soviet military and economic planning. Accordingly, we believe it unlikely thai the Soviets could achieve their defense objectives for aircraft at an appreciably lower cost|
It is impossible to predict whether ihc system would function successfullyonflict wilh either NATO or Chinese forces. We believe, however, that it would provethe fighting followed the short, intense scenarios anticipated by the Solicit. The Soviets are probably aware that, during actualmaintenance norms could be greatly relaxed and thr l, at least initially, the maintenance pipelines from air regiment; to overhaul plants could be reversed, wilh many aircraft and engines en route to the overhaul plant being redirected back to line units. Q
BLANK PAGE
Costing SotIh!:
Military Aircraft Maintenance
Approach
Special problems arc involved in estimating the annual cost ofilitary aircraft in accord with the Soviet system described in the text. The Soviet air forces are closemouthed about their operating costs and budget, and their maintenance philosophy,practices, aircraft inventory, and maintenance organization differ enough from those of the US or NATO armed forces to make Western analogues of limited value.'
, We know, however, from analysis of Soviet military maintenance practices for major equipment other than
' aircraft that there are strong parallels betweenand civilmn procedures and accounting methods. The data further suggest that the economic structure of Ihe military aircraft maintenance system in the
. Soviet Union is similar lo that ofnd lhat fundamental cost-estimating relationships (CERs) valid in the civilian sector may also hold for the military. Consequently, we believe lhat ihe kinds of operating cost planning factor* used by civilwealso used by tbe Soviet
Our methodological approach to estimating the annua! coal of maintenance for Soviet military aircraft isse Soviet civil aviationto reflect military operating rates andihe life-cycle cost planning factors probably employed by the armed forces. We derived thelanning factors primarily from data and formulas
vailable in texts and handbooks on ihe economics of Soviet aviation and have checked them against the limiied amount of economic intelligence available on Soviet mililary aircraft maintenance. This approach
: Involves translating the CERs used by civilianIn theirates ofamortizatlon. routine repair, and technical servicing coats, into similar equations lhat military planners might use. (
This approach has an advantage over methodologies based on Western analogues; it mirrors the way in which ihe Soviet military probably estimates its own aircraft maintenance costs and should yield estimates that reflect Soviet equipment characteristics,rates, and maintenance practices.j
Assumptions
Although the military, according to Soviet financials in the "nonproductive" sector of the economy, we believe its cost structure for aircraft maintenance to be similar to thai of civil aviation enterprises. Accordingly its method of planning ond accounting for maintenance costs should also be like that of rivil aviation, j |
Both direct and inferential evidence supports this assumption:
Military and civil aviation have virtually the same maintenance requirements and practices in the USSR. Their maintenance organizations havestructuresommon maintenanceOnly the operating rates, times before overhaulnd service lives appear lo differ, and (hen mainly as functions of equipment differences.
Mililary and civil aviation often share airfield and overhaul facilities.
Many military aircraft models and enginesin the transport category) aro Identical to ihose used by civil aviation.
The Soviet mililary reports its operaiing costs for individual aircraft in the same fashion as does civil avlaiion. These costs are of similar orders ofand are the same for like-model aircraft,
am planning foreus of operation! undland arms, andmililary uses an approach nearly Identical to that of
civilian enterprise*. j- J
of Soviet military nircraft to other countries include recommendations for nalalenancc planning that are similar lo those used by the Soviets for
I nonmilitary aircraft.
Soviets, whether by intent or by bureaucratic inertia, strongly favor standardization of equipment
, and procedures throughout their economy. Our
research in ciher fields strongly indicatesilitary and civilian pJannersarc usually guidedommon set of norms, especially for maintenance procedures and accounting practices, | 1
Against our assumption it can be argued that the military and civilian aircraft fleets differarge portion of the militaryand bombersmissions and designs that are purely military, have weapons, and have more sophisticated avionics than civil aircraft. Although these are valid considerations, we believe that the manufacturing cost basis of ibe Soviet planning equations adequately reflects mch differences because aircraft cost reflects technical
Two limitations of our methodology must be noted. First, it calculates life-cycle costs and therefore is notood approximator of the actual servicing costshtn aircraftiven year. Second, it yields budget planning coils rather lhan historical costs: it will, therefore, tend lo overtook temporary problems or deviations from trends and will indicate aggregate maintenance costs belter than the costsarticular aircraft modelarticular aspect of military
k M; I
Cost
Soviet economists and aviation authorities identify six categories of aircraft operating expense:
' :
Fueliand lubricants-
Amortization (that is, depreciation) of aircrafi and engines.
Routine repair and technical servicing of aircraft and engines.
Wages of personnel.
Social security deductions
Airfield operations.
Two of these items are relevant for estimating Ihe cost of mililary aircraft maintenance. These arcand routine repair and technicalj
The other costandages, social security deductions, and airfield Iless relevant to maintenance expense because they deal predominantly with operational, as opposed to repair, items. In addition, these constitute areas which, for intelligence purposes, require separate coil!
L_l
Amortization
The Soviets define amortizationanner quite different from that normally used by Westernand accountants. In Soviet finance, ihe term refers to ihe initial cost (or wholesale valuation when new) of an item of fixed productive capital plus Ihc cumulative cost of major overhauls performed during it! service life and minus its salvage values usually expressedstraight line" calculation on an hourly or yearly basis,
The notion of including the cost of capital (and. sometimes, medium) repairomponent ofof capital equipment follows directly from Marxian and Soviet economic theory regarding fixed productive capital. According to this theory, the value of working capital stock is gradually transferred in discrete, homogeneous units to the final product or output dtring the production process. Working capital llock con regain some of this "tosiowever, through periodic overhauls, which giveonger service life and. consequently, greater produciivity. Thus, when Soviet planners figure the depreciation of an item of Died productive capital, they lump together its Initial wholesale price and its life-cycle cosi of capital and medium repair.
A civilian enterprise in the Soviet economy calculates amortitation cosu on an anoual oasis for all equipment in in capitalnd deposits in the State Bank payments equal to those cosis. Cost planners base their calculations on official tables and norms for service lives and on amortization rates published inhandbooks. The enterprise will laterortion of the fund created by these payments to finance overhauls, as they become needed, and ihe remainder to purchase new Items of replacement capital equipment. This process constitutes theorf the fixed capital of the enterprise. The amortization payments madeiven item should reflect the lifetime cost ofand eventually replacing it. If they do not. the enterprise will be in financial trouble with both its current accounts and lis five-year plan.
The port Ion of amortization of an aircraft devoted to overhaul includes all costs allocable to capitalecause capital repair of aircraft is performed at Ihe factorypecial repair plant, overhaul charges include the com of replacement parts, labor, shop materials, transportation, and plant overhead.
Repair aaa* TtcAa;rC/ Strtltln
The category of routine repair and technicalan aircraft covers the costs of currentservicing, inspection, and maintenancemediumother words, allservices except capital repair. Expensescost of replacement parts, special tools andinslrumentation, and maintenance materials.are usually incurred at the airfield rather than |. j
The Soviets usually do not plan routine repair and technical servicing costser-aircraft basis. Moreover, because such work generally is performed at the airfield rather than at separate repair enter-prises, the costs of personnel and of operating the facilities are not Included In this category. Thus, Ihe cost of routine repair and technical servicing covers
here are rtrooa Indications thai ihe military also amortlree at least some of Iu capitalaircraft and other weapon
neerina oqulpment. forIs usually defined to Include medium repair. Tho general procedure foe calculateUotherwUeKkniicaLf-ii
only direct, material expense, figured as an average for the aircraft fleet. 1
!
Derivation of tk* Emanating Model
SymMs
The aircraft maintenance cost estimating modela number of symbols to represent different variables. For convenience. Ihe definitions of these symbols will be grouped inio three categories:variables (values lhat are derived from data and analysis outside of the model and may, therefore, be taken asndogenous variables (values from the data and equations of thend parameters (constant values given by the Soviets to define certain fundamental cost j.
The symbols are as follows:
Exogenoitelj Derived Variables
P denotes the manufacturers price (wholesale price to the mililary) of an aircraft or engine. This price can be given In rubles or in equivalent dollars.
L denotes the service life of an aircraft or engine, given in operating hours or years. An item is written off for salvage value ai the expiration of its service life.
R denotes the rtsurs or TBO of an aircraft or engine, always given in operating hours or years of service. When an item reaches Ihe end of its rtsurs, it is shippedlant for capital repair.
E denotes the number of engine beds on anthe number of engines lhat will have to be maintained.
T denotes ihe annual flying limeilitary aircraft, given In hours. It includes all time spent in flight, whether productive (mission-rclalcd) or nonproductive (associated with ma in tenar.ee. testing, or familia.'ization).
ixrftit
lj.il. :
denotes tbe perv.xJk c* the lifetimeation (or amortization nto) of an aircraft
or engine: It can be given In ruble* orquivalent dollar*.
N denotes the number of capital repairs; formed on an aircraft or engine during its
the annual operating rate ofircraft or engine, given In hours,
Ml " :
C denotes the periodic or tbe lifetime costtype of maintenance (either overhaulroutine repair and technical servicing) foror engine, given In rabies or a- !
TC denotes the totalperiodic or ' all maintenance (that is. both routine and capital repair) performed on
an aircraft and itsiven In
rubles or in equivalent dollars. Q
Pvreatrters
k denotes Ibe factor used by Ihe Soviets lo determine Ihe costingle capitalor5 foronorton aircrajton aircraft,or aircraft of more thanI'
m denotes the Soviets' factor for routine repair and technical servicing, equalon the average) for aircraft and engines.
o denotes the Soviets' factor for operationngines on the ground during servicing,2 for airplanes3 for helicopters.
enotes theby theto adjust thecost of an aircraft or engine to reflect subtraction of salvage valueercent of Initial coil).
In addition lo these symbols, superscripts andare used. The superscripts indicate ibe lime Interval in which or foralue is expressed. The subscripts indicate which part of the maintenancealue refers to.
Septncrlpta
1 _
A denotes that the value is given in hours or per
hour.
! i I
/ denotes an aggregate, lifetime value.
y denotes that tbe value is given in years or per year.
Subscripts
a denotes that tbe value is given for an aircraft (airframe,d weaponry),of
r denotes thai the value is given for an engine.
* denotes lhat tbe value is given for capital repair (overhaul).
m denotes that the value is for routine repair and technical servicing.'
Capital Repair
The Soviets estimate theapital repair toixed proportion of the wholesale price of the item being repaired. For an aircraft or an engine, the cost of one capital repair can be expressed in general terms asIf Ihc item is overhauled sV times during its service life, then the life-cycle cost of capital repair is
Cl'NkP
I
The values given in hacubooks on aviation economics. The value foran be computed as
Lre set by the manufacturer. We know that civil aircraft usually undergo capital repair three to five times and their engines once or twice. Military aircraft usually have shorter service lives than civil aircraft and, consequently, fewer required overhauls.
The Soviets define the lifetime amortization of an aircraft or engine as the sum of its initial cost (less salvage value at tbe end of its service life) and the lifetime cost of capital repairs perfornxd on it.
A*-
Because payments are made annually, the yearly amortization rate for an aircraft or engine can be expressed ai
sP'+JVkP
If the service life is not specified in years, it can be found by dividing the service life in hours by the annual operating rate, or
J
j
For aircraft, the operating rate is equal to the annual flying lime. For engines, however, the operative rate also includes on-ground running during maintenance; the adjustment fat
Ot-oT
In their cost calculations, the Soviets make anto include nonproductive flying hours (training and theur independent estimatesnclude these, and no such adjustment need be made hcre.Q
Thus, the annual portion of the amortization payment for an aircraft or an engine devoted to capital repair is given as
Romtlm* Repair and Teektkmt Service The cost of routine repair and technical servicing is not part of the amortization rate. The Soviets estimate this cost for engines and aircraftery intricate calculation, expressing itunction of annual operating rate, technical oomplcxity of work involved, types of personnel performing tbe work, and wage rates of those personnel. Unfortunately, we lack access to the handbooks that provide the formulas and factors for* icula lion.
All is not lost, however, because for planning purposes the Sovietsecond way of expressing the annual and hourly cost of routine repair and technical servicing:unction of other aviation costs. There are probably Iwo reasons for the simpler method: first, the overcomplex nature of the calculation via the complete formula and. second, the uncertaintiesin predicting the kinds and quantity of current repair that will be required. In addition. Soviet accountants appear to prefer lo monitor these costsleet basis rather than an item basis, perhaps because of the difficulties involved in Tally allocating all expcndllures to individual items. j!
In any case, we can determine from Soviet texts on aviation economics tbat duringoutine repair and technical servicing cosu have been equallightly declining fraction (currently aboutcrceni) of annual amortization costs Moreover, tables of historical data for certain aircraft models do exist. Comparison of the reunion of routine repair and technical servicing cosu to amortization costelected group of aircraft models used by both civil aviation and ihe military indicates that the nalional figures seem lo be accurate esiimates for individual aircraft.^
Given all this, we can express the annual cost of routine repair and technical servicing for an aircraft or engineunction of the relevant annual amortization rale. Thus.
C'-mA'
or
Totalaim tut net CoMI
To ibis point we hive fellowed the eoftventions of Soviet accounting in keeping separate the cosu for an aircraft and itsn practice, however, the annual cost of maintaining the complete system is the sum of ihe cost of maintaining the aircraft and that of mainuining iuhat is,
where e7 Is the number of installed engines (equal to engine beds) on the aircraft. This can be expressed in more com pic* form as
Trr-,W. ,,
We have not included the cost of replacementthe expression for total aircraftthe Soviet and Ihe US military costthis to be an investment item, not aexpense.ypical Soviet aircraftfive or more engines for each of iu enginethe duration of iu service life, only one enginebed will be mainuincd at any one time, andestimating equations reflect this.,
Aataptlng tk* Model to Military Atialton
The abovealid for aircraft in Soviet civil aviation, but it is written in terms that can also be applied to armed forces aircraft. Such an application requires appropriate values for the exogenous variables P. L. R, E, and T. These variables can be valued only through independent intelligence analysis.-
The value for P, the manufacturer's price of the aircraft or engine, can be chosen in either of two wiys: the average unit price for ihe year of produclion or the cumulative average unit price over the entirerun. The Sovieu themselves opt for the former, at least in theory, thus allowing economie* of scale and learning to influence maintenanceccaU over time. This seems loealistic procedure.
The Soviet values in rubles, bul for purposes of sizing Soviet expenditures relative to those of the United Slates, we can use an equivalent dollar cost. If the ruble-dollar ratio between product cosu on both sides Is properly constructed, useollar valuen the maintenance CERs shouldost estimate that approximately reflects the expense which the US armed forces would incur if they maintained the aircraft and enginc(s) according to Soviet practice and specifications, but in this country. (
The service lifeand TBO (R) of an engine or aircraft musl be determined for each aircraft model on
Jnfdrtunately. our data are spouy in ter rrtOJ e
oT both models and years, and we muslumber of analytical judgments in assigning service lives and TBOs to Soviet military aircraft and engines. In general our research indicates thai military aircraft have shorter service lives lhan civil aircraft and that fewer capiulshorterThis is clearly an area requiring additional research.resenu our estimates of service lives, TBOs. and operating rates for milittry aircraft
The number of installed enginesis easilyfrom technicat analysis. It may be considered completely accurate.
L
A more serious consideration affecting the cost of maintenanceiven aircraft is whether spare engines (over and above ihose installed) should be counted in the estimating equations. We believe Ihey should not, because they receive only limitedand because the Sovieu would not begin topare for capiul repair until it actually came into service.' 1
The annual flvina time fT) musl be calculated
In general,lo calculateiven aircran mouriiven role we divide ihe total flying lime loggedililary air unit by the total aircraft inventory credited to it. Consequently, Tshould account for all operating hours except those relating to servicing, j
We assume thai the cost estimating model and the associiUi parameters valid for Soviet civil aviation arc also valid for the military. We have examined them closely for intuitive reasonableness and Torknown practices and factors in other areas of Soviet maintenance cost estimation and with US practices and factors. We have found no notable inconsistencies and no indication that the use of the civilian-derived model yields results that are qualitatively or quantitatively out of line with other
| ::" j
We feel that the weakest points in this estimating system arc not the model and its parameters, but rather the values for the exogenous variables which must be supplied from other analysis.
Cost Estlatatlrrg ReUfoetsaaes
The algebraic model presented above can be used toet of cost estimating relationships for the maintenance of the various types and models of Soviet military aircraft. Substituting the values for the fixed parameters into the equation onnd reducing, the following generalized cost estimating relationship can be written:
For some Soviet military aircraft, our only data are the price of the aircraft and the number of its engines. In this case we caneneralized version of the CER, with typical instead of specific valuesnd L. (This "shorthand" form of the calculation maybe useful even when we doomplete
Thus, if an airframe is assumed to be overhauled four limes andife ofears and an engine to be overhauled twice andife of fivehe CER may be rewritten as
I
In an even more generalized form, using an average value for the capital repair factor for airframes, an oqualion validrude estimator of maintenance costs for any mililary aircraft may be written as
"alues art hypothetical and do nos necessarily reprcseni our beat cuimaiea.r' *1
The first term in the expression calculatescosta for the airframe, avionics, and fixed weaponry, while the second docs the same for thelthough the CER is written lo estimate annual costs, it can be used to compute hourly expenses if the appropriate substitutions are made. Valuesre known or easily derived for ihe particular model aircraft whose maintenance costs are to be estimated. The value for theor airframes is given by weight class
1 In fact, we havee to duplicate reported military operaiiaf coals for specific aircrafi (Includlni flghitrt) with ailmaiea from
our;
See*)*
i XNV38
Open tins awlNorm* for Soil* MHIttiy Aircraft'
Appendix B
Type
or Service
Before
Overhaul
(TBO)
Sen-ice Life
Before Overhaul
Life
In Frontal
fighter-bomber,
medium-rangeDefense
= : .
400
Hours Years Hours Yesr.
W
Hours Years
too
bomber
Long Rangeand Navy
'
250
bomber
Long-range bomber (turboprop)
120
Long Rangeand Navy
Long Rangeion and Navy
0
0
All1
Frontal Aviation-amine aircraft and Air Defense Forces
Trainer
Flied-wing transport All
Rotary-sitnt aircraft
e ni port)_ 1_
All
Rotary-win" aircraft (combat/assault)
n FrontalVO
160
220
IS-20
s bb for like-model aircraft in other roles.
15
Norms are same es for combat or transport
IS
0
Estimated values are appraaimated for typical aircraftiven type or role. Specific modeb may have TBOs and service Uvea (Ut differ from these estimates.
' The category "air includes Military Transport Avialton,and Strategic roctetn addition to Ihe
*S
Original document.
Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: