4 x C-17's to the Arabs.

Not many but I think a very welcome order at this point in time. Congratulations to Boeing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLO58161920090224

Also 12 C130J's. Price for the C-17's, about $300 million a ship, $130 million for the C130's.

Wonder if they are going to go with the standard USAF dark grey paint job. Or will they ask for a desert paint scheme. Although I guess the question I should be asking is do they have a choice.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 1): Wonder if they are going to go with the standard USAF dark grey paint job.

Well UAE's current C-130s are in a mix of "ghost grey", white and camo so they seem to have options.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2): Well UAE's current C-130s are in a mix of "ghost grey", white and camo so they seem to have options.

I was refering to the C-17's, I should have included that in my post.

I would not be surprised to see the Saudis order C-17s as well. Not much point in waiting the better part of a decade for the A400, is there?

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 1): Wonder if they are going to go with the standard USAF dark grey paint job. Or will they ask for a desert paint scheme. Although I guess the question I should be asking is do they have a choice.

I suspect when you are writing a check of that size, you get to choose what color the jets come in.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 1): Wonder if they are going to go with the standard USAF dark grey paint job. Or will they ask for a desert paint scheme. Although I guess the question I should be asking is do they have a choice.

Yes, they do. Just as they did for their F-16E/Fs (a.k.a. Block 60s).

Ohh I thought the title of the thread meant the airline. Was somewhat surpriced to put it mildly.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 3): I was refering to the C-17's, I should have included that in my post.

Nope, your post was clear on that so I was including the C-17s in my comment, as well, but I probably should have been clearer.  

I find the title "Boeing sells 4 C-17's to Emirates" interesting. When Lockheed got the majority of the Emirates order in both number of airframes ordered and amount of money spent.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 9): I find the title "Boeing sells 4 C-17's to Emirates" interesting. When Lockheed got the majority of the Emirates order in both number of airframes ordered and amount of money spent.

Well recent speculation on this board has been with the A400M's issues, would existing customers move to the C17 in whole or in part? While the UAE was not an existing A400M customer, the chances of them being a future one are a bit more diminished, now.

Also, while Boeing secured an order for 15 additional C-17s from the USAF, when they did so they evidently contracted with their suppliers for parts to build twice that many frames - 30. So Boeing evidently felt that the chances of additional C-17 orders were likely - as may very well be the case here with the UAE order (assuming Boeing had not already known for some time they were likely to win it and had already contracted for sufficient parts).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10): would existing customers move to the C17 in whole or in part?

I hope so. The C-17 is as good an airlifter as you will find anywhere.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10): Well recent speculation on this board has been with the A400M's issues, would existing customers move to the C17 in whole or in part? While the UAE was not an existing A400M customer, the chances of them being a future one are a bit more diminished, now. Also, while Boeing secured an order for 15 additional C-17s from the USAF, when they did so they evidently contracted with their suppliers for parts to build twice that many frames - 30. So Boeing evidently felt that the chances of additional C-17 orders were likely - as may very well be the case here with the UAE order (assuming Boeing had not already known for some time they were likely to win it and had already contracted for sufficient parts).

How did your response even come close to answering my question? I asked why the C-17 was mentioned in the title while the C-130 garnered more orders?

Quoting 474218 (Reply 12): How did your response even come close to answering my question? I asked why the C-17 was mentioned in the title while the C-130 garnered more orders?

Well then maybe it is because nobody gives a rats ass about the C-130?  

IMVHO, the C-130J will be the big winner due to the A400M delays. The UAE order is just the start. I read a news report today where even South Africa, that Airbus stalwart, is talking about exploring options. Others may get wobbly as well.

To mid-size operators and up, a C-130/C-17 mix is much more flexible than an A-400M-only fleet, anyway. It will definitely be an interesting 12-24 months.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Also 12 C130J's. Price for the C-17's, about $300 million a ship, $130 million for the C130's.

The price per C-17 caught me by surprise. I didn't realize the airplane costs that much!

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 16): The price per C-17 caught me by surprise. I didn't realize the airplane costs that much!

Think about how much a 757 used to cost — $65-80 million in 2002 dollars, depending upon variant. Now consider that this airframe has a little over twice the MTOW (and twice as many of exactly the same engines), and that the C-17's price includes those engines, whereas the 757's price does not. It doesn't really sound that bad to me.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 16): The price per C-17 caught me by surprise. I didn't realize the airplane costs that much!

I do not believe the 4.3 billion dirham deal with Boeing is just four C-17s, which would result in a lower price per ship then Keesje's $300 million USD. The UAE also signed contracts with Boeing to provide spares and training for their Chinook helicopter fleet which was close to 1 billion dirham, so if that was also factored into the deal value...

Also, since the UAE is not a current C-17 operator, even if they are paying 1 billion dirham per ship, that has to include spares, training, and other ancillaries and is not just the base price of the airframe itself as I highly doubt the UAE would be paying the equivalent of almost twice the current USAF list price ($175 million USD per frame for the latest 15) just for the heck of it.  

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 16): The price per C-17 caught me by surprise. I didn't realize the airplane costs that much!

Aviation Week did a piece a week or so back that the cost is now $200 million for the USAF and $220 million for international customers. I referenced it on another thread in MilAv.

Edit: Here's the link to the AW&ST article.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0on%20C-17%20Sales&channel=defense

Quote: International pricing is about $220 million per aircraft, with the United States paying just over $200 million each.

For comparison, the current price of the A400M according to a report by the French Senate, in current year euros, is 145 million. At current exchange rates, that brings it close to a C-17, an aircraft that is significantly more capable in terms of payload.

[Edited 2009-02-25 08:24:15]

[Edited 2009-02-25 08:25:21]

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 5): I suspect when you are writing a check of that size, you get to choose what color the jets come in.

I think you also get to select the pilots' cupholders. 

I wonder if we will see some more 'surprise' orders for C-17s over the next couple of years, Israel, India, Saudi, Turkey, Japan, more for the UK and who else?, after all who would have expected Qatar and the UAE only a couple of years ago to go for such a strategic asset!!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):

He will use this article though in future A400 vs C-17 arguments as proof of the "extreme cost of the C-17." Hopefully everyone will see the price the USAF pays and realize there is nothing "extreme" in the price of a C-17. The aircraft actually gives you very good bang for you buck compared to the A400 at this stage.

One factor that goes in the C-17s favour is it is a mature aircraft, a new customer knows what they are getting , when they will get it and that all the problems have been ironed out. With the A400 you know roughly what you should be getting, you don't know when you will get it, and if you get it are you sure it's going work and be reliable?

At this stage in the game I would not be surprised if the RAF was to go for perhaps 4 more C-17s and a similar number, maybe more C-130Js and hopefully get the A400 in 5 years time by which time it should be in series production and hopefully will be a somewhat mature aircraft with most problems ironed out by the French Air force. As for other customers, go for the C-17, it's a damned good aircraft and it available pretty well now.

Quoting KennyK (Reply 23): One factor that goes in the C-17s favour is it is a mature aircraft, a new customer knows what they are getting , when they will get it and that all the problems have been ironed out. With the A400 you know roughly what you should be getting, you don't know when you will get it, and if you get it are you sure it's going work and be reliable?

I worked on product development on the C17 and I can tell you that it is a special purpose aircraft built around a mission, and that mission is to put an all up main battle tank into a forward area, specifically a 5,000 foot unimproved airstrip. It was designed around the M1 Abrams tank.

Of course, when you have that sort of heavy lift/short field capacity there are all sorts of other things you can do with it.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 24): I worked on product development on the C17 and I can tell you that it is a special purpose aircraft built around a mission, and that mission is to put an all up main battle tank into a forward area, specifically a 5,000 foot unimproved airstrip. It was designed around the M1 Abrams tank.

In a warfighting situation, how many tanks, gear, and personnel do you think we could place into a given area given our C-17 fleet? Call it an emergency situation where all assets were available for the purpose...

Both the C-17's and C-130J's value is only going to increase as the A400M takes longer to field. As the A400M continues to have issues, the C-17's order book and potential customer base expands along with the -130J's. While almost overshadowed in this deal, Lockheed secured 12 orders for their "ancient" C-130. The C-130 may not be the best answer for all of the solutions it provides but it is the most stable, well known and able platform to do so. It would be wise of us to consider that the C-130s death or surpassing has been trumpeted many times by other companies.

These delays can only grow the C-17/C-130 tandem's success. Customer's will begin to decide that a two fleet answer to their Strat/Tact question is better than an answer that has yet to demonstrate anything other than sitting on the ramp with giant props. This is in stark contrast to the day to day ops tempo that both the -17 and -130 are meeting for the US and World in OEF/OIF and other hot spots.

Boeing should take the bull by the horns and not try to let the US Air Force and Congress keep the line open, we are talking about an airlifter not a "true" weapons platform.
The A400m is in trouble, so Boeing should discount the C-17 and offer it up to potential A400M customers as an improved alternative, the volume picked up would keep the line economically viable at a reasonable cost to the consumer, rather than an expensive cost to the tax payors.
How many air fields right now are really too small for the C-17, this will be the main issue as the cost of the A400M is rising and could end up costing more than a C-17 once EADS gets all it economic ducks in a row.

LM would love to throw their expanded C-130XL into the mix, but the way that is going it may take just as long as the A400M.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 27): Boeing should take the bull by the horns...(and)...should discount the C-17 and offer it up to potential A400M customers as an improved alternative...

I would expect they are. However, the per frame cost for customers who already have a C-17 support infrastructure (like the RAF) is going to be lower then the cost for those who do not (pretty much everyone else).

It's why the USAF pays about $175 million, the RAF pays about $225 million, and the UAE pays about $300 million. The USAF just needs the plane with no ancillaries. The RAF needs the plane and some ancillaries. The UAE needs the plane and all the ancillaries.

Now I do not agree with Keesje's belief that the A400M's $1xx million per frame price includes any. much less all, ancillaries, but I would not be surprised if said ancillaries cost less then those a C-17 needs since the C-17 is a jet and it's a strategic and tactical airlifter where the A400M is a prop and really just a tactical airlifter.

All that being said, if the "unthinkable" happens and France and Germany each placed an order for 50 C-17s, they'd be paying less then the RAF would, but more then the USAF was - say $200 million a frame including ancillaries. At that point, it might very well be only, say, $10 million more per frame then an A400M buy of equal size (including ancillaries). Mind you, that would still make the C-17 buy a billion more then the A400M buy... And if Spain could be convinced to buy 25, and the Belgians, Luxembourgians (sic) and Turks all combine and order 20 together, then a near 200 frame order would be even cheaper. I can't see Malaysia buying just one so I expect they would go another route and South Africa may not find a fleet of 5-10 C-17s worth the cost of building a support infrastructure for so they too would likely see other airlifter options.

Ramstein Air Base in Germany is already C-17 ready and there were plans for the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability (NSAC) consortium to base the "NATO C-17s" there before they were sent to Hungary for political reasons. Still, the NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency could work out a deal to support the German C-17s (at Ramstein or other Luftwaffe bases) as well as take care of Luxembourg's, Belgium's and Turkey's birds (the former two in Germany and the latter in Hungary) which would help consolidate ancillary purchases and improve pricing (especially if France agreed to pool their buying resources as well, even if they maintained their own facilities on French soil).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28): (especially if France agreed to pool their buying resources as well, even if they maintained their own facilities on French soil).

Some how I get the feeling that you were doing real good until you mentioned the French.

I admint I did not take my thought process all the way through to the ancillaries, but thinking about it, Boeing could offer to establish a maintenance depot in Europe itself rather than using facilities already being used by the US Air Force, in case other countries do not like the "association" with the US Military, Boeing could end up doing what EADS and Airbus want to do in the US except one starts from a maintenance perspective.

Just a thought

Quoting Par13del (Reply 29): Some how I get the feeling that you were doing real good until you mentioned the French.

While France is a NATO country, they maintain their armed forces separately from the rest of NATO's military structure so I would expect in such a hypothetical scenario that the French Air Force would base their C-17s on French soil and would handle their maintenance, training and operations independently. However, they could still participate in group buys of things like spares.

My thought process was that France would keep its order for the A400M, in retrospect though, if the project was cancelled then yes, basing in France would be in order.
Would really be something if the project is cancelled, I don't think it will, but you never know. EADS and Airbus do have healthy backlogs of a/c to build and deliver, so it not as if the companies need a "stimulus" a/c package. They could let the program go dormant for a while to "encourage" a rethink of the cost and current mandates.
Interesting next few months.

Cheers

When people talk about the French, they tend to forget the KC135, C130 and DC8's.

I do not think that a French C17 is impossible.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 32): When people talk about the French, they tend to forget the KC135, C130 and DC8's.

Quite right my friend but how many of them were pre-Airbus??? Once a local providor came around the French quite rightly supported their local industry.