Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 2): Hi, any indication as to who this unnamed customer is? |
Quoting bunumuring (Reply 7): The 'dark horse'? NZ, with a single frame to operate in conjunction with the RAAF... |
Quoting Buckeyetech (Reply 12): All white tails have been bought. Qatar was the last one, and has been delivered pending upgrades at San Antonio. |
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 14): 14-0003 still remains unsold and sitting at KSKF. |
Quoting Ozair (Reply 15): Any rumors on who a potential buyer might be? |
bunumuring wrote:4 x Qatar
WIederling wrote:What does Qatar actually use these frames for?
Stitch wrote:WIederling wrote:What does Qatar actually use these frames for?
As with the C-17s operated by Kuwait and the UAE, they're part of the Gulf Cooperation Council transport fleet .
Stitch wrote:.. and have been used for things like humanitarian aid, evacuation, moving equipment and supplies and mercy flights for the injured.
WIederling wrote:Stitch wrote:.. and have been used for things like humanitarian aid, evacuation, moving equipment and supplies and mercy flights for the injured.
Nice fiction.
Phosphorus wrote:......... http://www.avgeekery.com/india-buys-the ... ver-built/
(title was changed to "India Buys the Last Unsold Boeing C-17", but the link retained its original name)
neutrino wrote:"$22 billion".Huh?
Tugger wrote:neutrino wrote:"$22 billion".Huh?
It is a typo as far as I can tell. Supposed to be $2 billion from the below article, which makes a lot more sense. As an aside that is some ₹128 billion (ruppees)
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sale-of- ... es-1739394
Tugg
Dutchy wrote:Still, almost (USD 100M) per MQ-9 is still way too much. Should be more in the 15 - 20 million USD range, per copy without anything else. They are expensive, but not that expensive
Stitch wrote:Dutchy wrote:Still, almost (USD 100M) per MQ-9 is still way too much. Should be more in the 15 - 20 million USD range, per copy without anything else. They are expensive, but not that expensive
But that is the key - as a new operator for the type, there are assuredly numerous ancillaries to the deal in addition to the base cost of the drones. I expect India will operate these from multiple locations, so that infrastructure will need to be replicated at each location which would significantly raise the price per unit beyond things like spares and training that can be amortized across all of the units.
The $17 million flyaway cost is something I expect only the USAF would pay for newly-ordered frames as they already have all that support infrastructure in place and would just be paying for the airframe itself.
Tugger wrote:Yes and a huge part many seem to forget is that a drone is only half the equation (and probably less that half the cost), it is a remote sensor and requires a staffed support system that manned by trained professionals along with an information transmission (think satellites, ground relays, server farms) and a "home base" etc. In addition to maintenance etc.
Because of Reaper’s nature, unit-cost estimates can be tricky. Various media reports cite a per-unit cost from $4 million to $5 million. They are quite incorrect.
Because they are integral to Reaper’s ability to operate, the ground components for it must be included, and a Combat Air Patrol, or “CAP” (i.e. the specified Reaper operating unit), consists of four air vehicles, not one. Accordingly, the Air Force factsheet for Reaper cites a unit cost not for one air vehicle but for a Reaper CAP (“four aircraft with sensors”) at $53.5 million in FY 2006 dollars (which would be $60.3 million in 2012 dollars).[1] But even that Air Force fact sheet calculation is incomplete.
It does not include development and other costs that are included in DOD’s summary Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs). The latest SAR available (from December 2010) shows a cost of $11.3 billion (in 2008 dollars) for the then-planned total purchase of 399[2] individual Reaper air vehicles and associated ground equipment.[3] In contemporary 2012 dollars that comes to $12.1 billion, which calculates to $30.2 million for each individual Reaper and its share of ground equipment, or $120.8 million for a complete, operable CAP of four.
Ozair wrote:Tugger wrote:Yes and a huge part many seem to forget is that a drone is only half the equation (and probably less that half the cost), it is a remote sensor and requires a staffed support system that manned by trained professionals along with an information transmission (think satellites, ground relays, server farms) and a "home base" etc. In addition to maintenance etc.
Exactly, Time did a cost analysis of US cost for Reaper during 2012 which can be found at the following link, http://nation.time.com/2012/02/28/2-the-mq-9s-cost-and-performance/Because of Reaper’s nature, unit-cost estimates can be tricky. Various media reports cite a per-unit cost from $4 million to $5 million. They are quite incorrect.
Because they are integral to Reaper’s ability to operate, the ground components for it must be included, and a Combat Air Patrol, or “CAP” (i.e. the specified Reaper operating unit), consists of four air vehicles, not one. Accordingly, the Air Force factsheet for Reaper cites a unit cost not for one air vehicle but for a Reaper CAP (“four aircraft with sensors”) at $53.5 million in FY 2006 dollars (which would be $60.3 million in 2012 dollars).[1] But even that Air Force fact sheet calculation is incomplete.
It does not include development and other costs that are included in DOD’s summary Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs). The latest SAR available (from December 2010) shows a cost of $11.3 billion (in 2008 dollars) for the then-planned total purchase of 399[2] individual Reaper air vehicles and associated ground equipment.[3] In contemporary 2012 dollars that comes to $12.1 billion, which calculates to $30.2 million for each individual Reaper and its share of ground equipment, or $120.8 million for a complete, operable CAP of four.
bunumuring wrote:So Qatar getting the last white tail is absolutely definite?
I was hoping it would bought as an 'ANZAC' joint RAAF/RNZAF transport ...
Cheers,
Bunumuring
Slug71 wrote:I wonder whats up with the sudden "red tape". They already have C-17s and P-8s (which are much more sensitive than a cargo lifter).
This is exactly why India used to avoid US metal and went Russian.
Stitch wrote:Slug71 wrote:I wonder whats up with the sudden "red tape". They already have C-17s and P-8s (which are much more sensitive than a cargo lifter).
This is exactly why India used to avoid US metal and went Russian.
The "red tape" is on the Indian Ministry of Defense's side, not the US Department of Defense's or Commerce Department's. The US is preparing to rescind the deal because India won't commit whereas other C-17 customers appear ready to.
Slug71 wrote:
Apparently my reading comprehension sucks today. Not enough coffee yet.
India's procurements are a mess the last few years.
Phosphorus wrote:It's not over till it's over. Looks like India has not yet bought the lone available C-17, and this airframe could be back in play:
https://theprint.in/2017/11/08/india-ve ... -red-tape/
India is now set to snap up the world’s last available C-17 heavy transport aircraft after a last-minute approval by the defence ministry last week, two years after a special request was made to Washington to reserve the plane.
A meeting of the defence acquisition committee (DAC) headed by minister Nirmala Sitharaman cleared the procurement that will take the total number of the transport aircraft in the Indian Air Force to 11.
The lone aircraft is likely to cost India over Rs 2,700 crore and could arrive within a few months after the formal signing of the contract. The plane is being bought under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) or direct government purchase route from Washington.
With the clearance, the defence ministry will now send a formal ‘letter of acceptance’ (LOA) to confirm the sale.
kanban wrote:I noticed that the Indian fleet of ten (10) have completed 12,000 hours of service.. I'm curious whether this would be considered a "normal" amount of service for the fleet to date. (see Boeing press releases)
Ozair wrote:
Looks like India will get the last C-17 with the deal finally approved.
The Boeing Co., Defense, Space, and Security, Huntington Beach, California, has been awarded a $262,000,000 not-to-exceed undefinitized contract action for one C-17 aircraft.
This contract provides for delivery of a C-17 aircraft in the India unique configuration.
Work will be performed in San Antonio, Texas, and is expected to be complete by Aug. 22, 2019.
This contract involves foreign military sales to the country of India.
This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Foreign military sales funds in the amount of $2,000,000 are being obligated at the time of award.
WIederling wrote:bunumuring wrote:4 x Qatar
What does Qatar actually use these frames for?
Moving Racing Camels ?
Weapons to ISIS in Syria?
Stitch wrote:Appears to have been delivered in August: https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/india-t ... ed-states/
Phosphorus wrote:Stitch wrote:Appears to have been delivered in August: https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/india-t ... ed-states/
Thank you! So, that seals it -- since factory closure, all planes delivered, all customers satisfied -- with exception of India -- who presumably wanted two more.
Not bad for a gamble to build 10 white-tails. And naysayers were predicting these ten would collect dust, without customers.
Not bad at all.
angad84 wrote:Phosphorus wrote:Stitch wrote:Appears to have been delivered in August: https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/india-t ... ed-states/
Thank you! So, that seals it -- since factory closure, all planes delivered, all customers satisfied -- with exception of India -- who presumably wanted two more.
Not bad for a gamble to build 10 white-tails. And naysayers were predicting these ten would collect dust, without customers.
Not bad at all.
India had budgeted for three additional frames, so as it turns out, Boeing could have built 12 white tails and still sold the lot.