English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

It is widely believed that Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) are less costly than comparable manned aircraft. However, the costs per flying hour frequently used to compare unmanned and manned aircraft only cover variable costs of aircraft operation. Variable costs per flying hour may overstate UASs’ cost advantage because they do not account for UASs having shorter life spans and being destroyed at higher rates than manned aircraft. In this note, we develop a lifecycle cost per flying hour that considers both acquisition and recurring costs while also accounting for UASs having shorter life spans and greater accidental destruction rates than manned aircraft. We compare unmanned United States Air Force RQ-4 to manned United States Navy P-8 costs using our methodology. While the RQ-4 has a variable cost per flying hour about 38% less than the P-8’s, we find that the RQ-4’s lifecycle cost per flying hour is about 17% less than the P-8’s.

A Note on Estimating the Relative Costs of Unmanned Aerial Systems