$2B aus, which is $1.44B USD at the exchange rate in April 2006. Furthermore you insist on quoting old information when newer information is available and has been provided to you on several occasions. So I will ask again, if you are going to quote information from 2006 and say that it's valid today, please provide me with evidence of inservice A400Ms (which we are supposed to have according to information from 2006).
I do find it interesting that you argued for the EADS KCX bid being the objective choice for the tanker contract but you insist on throwing up irrational and outdated poppycock on this thread. I also find it funny that you argued for the A400M on the grounds it would be available while LM
only had power points in previous threads:
Now if the A400 is up and flying next year and touring the USA LM will still be doing powerpoints.
Which you posted https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...archid=97025&s=kc-x+keesje#ID97025
Now in fairness you did point out that others have used some of the arguements you are now using against the C17, but what I can't help but find very amusing is that at the very least, when the US was looking for a tanker they bid it, and Europe chose to single source their military transport project. Now the bid process may have been royally f***ed up (sorry there is nothing else to call it), but it's still miles ahead of the 'A400M I chose you' approach from Europe.
Here's the question I would put to you Keesje; just what is it about the A400M that makes it better in any way than the C17? Let's leave out purchase price since we will have to agree to disagree on the prices you are quoting for *both* the C17 and the A400M. Please apply the same rational you applied when discussing the KC
-X competition. Also please don't include features that are likely to be dropped from the 400M (such as low level terrain following, etc.)
|Quoting Keesje (Reply 306):|
I get the feeling some folks are trying to talk the C-17 into a similar prices A400M alternative by letting A400M costs explode and C-17 costs implode. That is a nice exercition but has nothing to do with reality.
Finally I just have to point out the irony of that statement. You are complaining about something having nothing to do with reality while conveniently using old/outdate and/or incorrect information as it suits you, while the current reality has been provided to you on numerous occasions.
Here's the reality as far as I can tell based on the most recently available information:
a) The purchase price for the A400M is going up. At the very least I think it's safe to *assume* a 10% price increase. That puts it damned close to 160M Eu.
b) The most recent publically quoted price for the C17 is $220M US to 'foreign' purchasers.
c) The Euro is current trading at: 1.2716 USD, which means the A400M's cost is: $184M at list and likely at least $203M based on my above assumption.
d) The price quoted for the C17 is likely a small buy price
e) Large buys always get better pricing, even in the military space
All of the above lead me to believe that it's entirely possible, *in reality* for the A400M to cost more (as the 145M Eu price is based on the big orders place by the EU, i.e. there is no bulk discounting left on the table) than a similar *lift capactiy* buy of C17s.
Finally regarding the supplies and spares and support costs, the EADS press release for the A400M order said nothing about that:
The launch contract provides for a total of 180 A400M transport aircraft for seven NATO International military alliance created to defend western Europe against a possible Soviet invasion. nations with the Airbus partners Germany (60), France (50), Spain (27) and the UK (25) placing the largest orders. The other national partners' and customers' orders are Turkey (10), Belgium (7) and Luxemburg (1).
There is no reference in *anything* I can find online to spares/support being included in the contracted price. Undoubtedly there would be *some* support to go along with a new type, but how much and what additional costs might be incurred are (publically) completely unspecified.