Hummm… Didn’t UK bought its first two C-17 trough a (really) expensive leasing contract ?

There is some blur here as the price quoted by you is the one shown on the request to congress

The only confirmed price that I can (rapidly) find on google is the one stated by FlightGlobal (see the news section on KeyPub forum.

See above pls

Up to 6

Minimum hour is roughly around 2000. It does not said what was the real amount of hours flown. Company chartered are Ant and Volga

Sources :
SALIS : http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50106.htm

NSPA : http://www.nspa.nato.int/leaflets/docs/NAM_Fact_EN.pdf

See above please + C-17 price that you used is from Wiki 2007

I am not saying anywhere that the C17 is a good plane. I am just pointing at the recent deal as a matter of possible opportunity. No less, no more.

When elephants are typing the bill on a pocket’s calculator, everything else looks cheaper.

Yes the First 4 UK C-17’s where leased however I am talking about the last one paid for and delivered in 2012 at a cost of 200 million pounds which at that time worked out to be 310 million dollars

The contract for the An-124’s is for a minimum of 2000 hour so they could use more or less and still have to pay for the 2000 hrs as in my post I have already added an extra 60 million over 10 years to the French share

The Indian deal as it stands is 5.8 billion with Boeing trying to get the cost down one report I have seen had a figure of 4.6 billion with no spears package but this is still a long way from 1.8 billion

Up to 6 What is up to 6 ?

What are the costs per hour for NSPA fleet and how much did the airframes cost to start with 1 report has Hungary’s cost’s in the program at 6-8 million dollars for 50 Hours flying per year

Here are some more deals for C-17

UAE 6 aircraft @ 250million dollars each + support package per aircraft
Kuwait 1 aircraft 371 million dollars all in
Qatar 4 aircraft 900 million dollars + support costs

When elephants are typing the bill on a pocket’s calculator, everything else looks cheaper. What the hell are you talking about

So nobody question the fact that for years, France for example, had to rely on expensive Heavy Cargo services (An-224 and others), spending an awful load of money on services provided by those “companies” ?

That the fleet of C-160 was maintained in service (and some gone trough expensive slep) despite the cost ?

That the A400 in-service introduction will be slow with stepped capabilities for years (no-full military at first)?

This has to be accounted for.

Ok lets look at it in 2006 Australia paid 1.5 billion dollars for 4 C-17 and have added 2 more at a cost of 560 million dollars total cost not including maintenance 2.06 billion

In 2012 the UK added another C-17 to its fleet at a cost 310 million dollars plus signed a 300 million dollar maintenances deal

India has just signed a deal for 10 C-17’s deal set at 5.8 billion dollars

So where is 1.8 billion dollars for 10 C-17’s is coming from apart from dream I do not know

France spent 160 million dollars to overhaul 10 C-160’s

Many European countries including the UK who has C-17’s have used An-124’s over the years

The SALIS program that involves 18 NATO and EU countries cost 200 million Euros a year all in to operate 2 An-124’s

So split between 18 lets say 12 million each and the lets say France pays a bit more say 20 million a year over 10 years that’s 200 million plus the 160 million for the overhaul of the 10 C160’s works out 360 million dollars just 50 million over the cost of 1 C-17

Lets also say using the augment that has been used on this thread that C-17 can carry more further then A400m so An-124 can carry more further then C-17

So no C-17 is not and would not have been a cheaper option

So with the 400 million dollars they might spend on FA-50 what might the money be spent on instead

10 Mil-17’s cost about 170 million dollars and would add a good transport type
4 C235 MPA’s cost about 180 million giving much needed maritime patrol
This leaves about 50 million dollars to upgrade the Huey fleet or source and upgrade more OV-10’s

Argentina is already building, in its own shipyards (which are perfectly capable of building such vessels), the first of a planned four or five 80 metre OPVs.

Like this (click if you only see a thumbnail) – [ATTACH=CONFIG]217654[/ATTACH]
but without the Chilean flag.
Designed by Fassmer. http://www.fassmer.de/index.php?id=190

Yep they will work looks like a good design but I would push for 8 of them given that they are built in house good for the navy good for the workers

Once again I agree but I still feel this class of OPV is what they need. And should be looking to get 1 a year for 6 to 8 years

as I said Cost 4 Absalon Class Frigates 1.1 Billion dollars 8 Knud Rasmassen class OPV’s 800 milllion dollars over 6 years
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217623[/ATTACH]
Knud Rasmassen class OPV

My point was that with a FAUC of 218 million dollars in 2007 there is no way anyone including the US airforce is getting 10 C-17’s for 1.8 billion today and the same number of airframes in the India deal looks set at 5.8 billion dollars

Plus can C-17 AAR ?