5 more C17's?
Thread Starter
5 more C17's?
Apologies if already posted, but I saw the comment below on another board and was wondering if this referred to our current 4 at 99sqn or if we're looking at going up to 9 in total?
"Flight International two weeks ago said "[Boeing] has ordered long-lead items for 22 [C-17] aircraft beyond the core USAF purchase ... with this number including five aircraft for the UK." The rest of the 22 is made up of 4 for Austrialia, 4 for Canada, a potential 7 attrition aircraft for the USAF, and 2 for Sweden or the Netherlands"
Not seen anything to suggest we were going beyond 4 so would be grateful if someone could confirm or deny?
And before the cry "Journo" rings out, I'm happy to give a DII address via PM...
"Flight International two weeks ago said "[Boeing] has ordered long-lead items for 22 [C-17] aircraft beyond the core USAF purchase ... with this number including five aircraft for the UK." The rest of the 22 is made up of 4 for Austrialia, 4 for Canada, a potential 7 attrition aircraft for the USAF, and 2 for Sweden or the Netherlands"
Not seen anything to suggest we were going beyond 4 so would be grateful if someone could confirm or deny?
And before the cry "Journo" rings out, I'm happy to give a DII address via PM...
Suspicion breeds confidence
I was expecting one more, but perhaps the sheer utility of this aircraft make the purchase of another 5 worthwhile. Even if it means chopping the A400M order by half.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
'twas in the defence spending review 2004.
Ah the wonders of Google.
to buy the four C-17 airlifters currently being leased
from Boeing and to purchase an additional C-17;
I understood it to be to buy the 'clapped out' leased ones when the lease expires - saves paying the excess mileage charge on trade in, and to buy more.
Ah the wonders of Google.
to buy the four C-17 airlifters currently being leased
from Boeing and to purchase an additional C-17;
I understood it to be to buy the 'clapped out' leased ones when the lease expires - saves paying the excess mileage charge on trade in, and to buy more.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Senior UK Royal Air Force (RAF) officers have launched a review of their 'airlift mix'. The aim is to allow them to establish a clear plan to manage the introduction into service of the Airbus A400M and an additional Boeing C-17 Globemaster as well as the withdrawal of the existing fleet of Lockheed Martin C-130K Hercules aircraft over the next 10 years.
They'll have to - there is no money now and very little in the future. The way the long term costings are juggled and revised has always been farcical - the MoD lead the way in 'living beyond your means' and all the big projects that come in over budget (surprise surprise) just make it worse. But it's OK, we have propped up BAe and Westlands and got Typhoon and Future Lynx.....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Green Flash,
Yes probably paying twice - lease and then the second user price.
As they are 'high mileage' there would be a high mileage penalty and also the cost of repainting, removing the inevitable Brit kit, making sure there are no bullets lying under the floor etc.
The cost of valetting and the usage penalties would no doubt offset the buy in price.
Yes probably paying twice - lease and then the second user price.
As they are 'high mileage' there would be a high mileage penalty and also the cost of repainting, removing the inevitable Brit kit, making sure there are no bullets lying under the floor etc.
The cost of valetting and the usage penalties would no doubt offset the buy in price.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without going it to it too deeply, I understood that it was the lease that was bloody expensive and that buying it out at the end was fairly reasonable - after all, Boeing want the continued support business. Don't think we have paid twice, but we have paid significantly more than we needed by leasing in the first place.
There is no scope to reduce the A400M offtake, none at all. We will get a minimum of 25, end of story.
There is no scope to reduce the A400M offtake, none at all. We will get a minimum of 25, end of story.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bath
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The buy-out price for the 4 ac is just the lease price paid so far minus what we would have paid if we had bought them out first time wrong. So not paying for them twice nor overpaying.
We are paying for them in 7 years rather than 30 though! Also the price is the same no matter how many hourse we've flown them. That rumour is not true.
We are paying for them in 7 years rather than 30 though! Also the price is the same no matter how many hourse we've flown them. That rumour is not true.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KiwiEng, I think you are wrong. The total price we will pay is significantly more than if we had bought them in the first place, just the same as any other lease/buy deal, so we are overpaying.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bath
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly don't want to get into an arguement. My point was made as a recollection as I worked on the programme a few years ago and remember the figures as being roughly equal. Happy to be wrong if you know better.
That said, I do not believe the business case to buy them has yet been approved!
That said, I do not believe the business case to buy them has yet been approved!
