Qatar Orders 4 Additional C-17s

Stitch · Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:55 pm

So four more white tails are now accounted for.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...epeat-c-17-order-for-qatar-413611/

Last I read Boeing had nine white tails, so this would bring that down to five. If Canada takes one and India three, that just leaves one, unless it is part of the two Australia have ordered.

I believe this is still a current list of available frames:

14-0001 - 50271 - N270ZD
14-0002 - 50272 - N271ZD
14-0003 - 50273 - N272ZD
14-0005 - 50275 - N274ZD
14-0006 - 50276 - N275ZD
14-0007 - 50277 - N276ZD
14-0008 - 50278 - N277ZD
14-0009 - 50279 - N278ZD
14-0010 - 50280 - N279ZD

[Edited 2015-06-15 11:00:47]

mercure1 · Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:24 pm

According to Boeing they had 5 left on Sunday, but now maybe only 1 left after the Qatar top up. Not sure how to interpret wording below.

Boeing Co said on Sunday it was in "deep discussions" with potential buyers for five remaining C-17 cargo planes built before Boeing halted production of the aircraft, and expected to sign purchase agreements before the fourth quarter.

Raymond said Boeing had eight aircraft left to sell when it decided to shut the Long Beach, California, facility where the planes were built. One of the planes has already been sold to an unnamed customer, and two to Australia, leaving five aircraft.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/airsho...eyes-sale-remaining-133232402.html

PanAm_DC10 · Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:17 pm

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 1):
One of the planes has already been sold to an unnamed customer

Hi, any indication as to who this unnamed customer is?

Thanks and regards

Paul

Stitch · Tue Jun 16, 2015 1:19 am

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 2):
Hi, any indication as to who this unnamed customer is?

I am assuming it is Canada per Canada Intends To Buy 1 C-17: Source (by ThePointblank Dec 11 2014 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

ZeeZoo · Tue Jun 16, 2015 1:29 am

I have a question, what exactly does Qatar need 8 C-17s for?

Avro7 · Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:31 am

Quoting ZeeZoo (Reply 4):

Quoting ZeeZoo (Reply 4):
I have a question, what exactly does Qatar need 8 C-17s for?

there may be other reasons, but I'm sure for them that "just because they can" is good enough.

[Edited 2015-06-15 19:32:06]

Ozair · Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:46 am

Quoting ZeeZoo (Reply 4):
I have a question, what exactly does Qatar need 8 C-17s for?

State transport for race horses? Last I heard the current aircraft were all flown by Boeing crews anyway.

bunumuring · Tue Jun 16, 2015 11:18 am

I thought that there were ten white tails?
2 x UAE
2 x Australia
1 x Canada
4 x Qatar
Leaving one left... The 'unnamed customer'...
It's not likely to be a 'new' customer purchasing only one... And if it was any of the above, or India or NATO, we would know about it...
My guesses, in order: Kuwait, Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Singapore... Then perhaps another one for UK, Canada, Australia (but highly unlikely). The 'dark horse'? NZ, with a single frame to operate in conjunction with the RAAF...
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Kiwirob · Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:28 pm

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 7):
The 'dark horse'? NZ, with a single frame to operate in conjunction with the RAAF...

I hope not.

Kiwirob · Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:21 pm

Has the final white tail been sold? Or is it still in San Antionio?

Stitch · Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:47 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):
Has the final white tail been sold? Or is it still in San Antionio?

Based on media reports I Googled, it sounds like Qatar might have taken it.

Kiwirob · Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:25 pm

Qatar got the last on off the production line, but I think that still leaves the third of the final 10 unaccounted for.

Buckeyetech · Fri Feb 26, 2016 5:53 pm

All white tails have been bought. Qatar was the last one, and has been delivered pending upgrades at San Antonio.

L-188 · Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:25 am

I have a bad feeling that the C-17 is going to end up in the same category as the A-1 Skyraider.

At some point in the future we are going to realize how good it is actually is and wish we had built more of them

Galaxy5007 · Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:11 am

Quoting Buckeyetech (Reply 12):

All white tails have been bought. Qatar was the last one, and has been delivered pending upgrades at San Antonio.

14-0003 still remains unsold and sitting at KSKF.

Qatar bought 4 of them, they got 14-0005, 0006, 0009, and 0010. UAE got 0007 and 0008. Canada got 0004; and Australia got 0001 and 0002.

Ozair · Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:13 am

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 14):
14-0003 still remains unsold and sitting at KSKF.

Any rumors on who a potential buyer might be?

Stitch · Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:54 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 15):
Any rumors on who a potential buyer might be?

India expressed an interest in multiple frames, but only after all but one had been sold.

sturmovik · Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:02 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
India expressed an interest in multiple frames, but only after all but one had been sold

And I'm sure we'll get around to placing the order once the last one has been sold

Galaxy5007 · Sat Feb 27, 2016 11:35 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 15):
Any rumors on who a potential buyer might be?

The last rumor I heard which was about 5 months ago was NATO might take it in a joint effort with the USAF if it isn't sold by the end of FY16. India's sale has quite frankly been a pain in the butt for Boeing. They were extra picky with all the details, and they were pulling that garbage again with the other 3 frames that they were trying to get. I doubt they will take the last one. Who knows, maybe Canada will spring for a 6th.

Phosphorus · Wed May 31, 2017 9:18 pm

Just wondering, what's the latest on the 14-0003 - 50273 - N272ZD frame? Still sitting on Boeing books, waiting for takers?
India was mentioning multiple times they wanted three.
Then late last year, there were rumblings about buying one, if that was all that's available:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/iaf- ... 38640.html
But has anything happened since?

WIederling · Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:18 pm

bunumuring wrote:
4 x Qatar

What does Qatar actually use these frames for?

Moving Racing Camels ?

Weapons to ISIS in Syria?

Stitch · Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:34 pm

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 and have been used for things like humanitarian aid, evacuation, moving equipment and supplies and mercy flights for the injured.

WIederling · Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:27 am

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 .

OK. For the general process of laying waste to the region while not getting any traction on pushing back Iran.
Brilliant.

Stitch wrote:
.. and have been used for things like humanitarian aid, evacuation, moving equipment and supplies and mercy flights for the injured.

Nice fiction.

Stitch · Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:27 pm

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.

Take it up with the GCC member states since it's their statement on some of the reasons as to why they bought them. The UAE sent their C-17s to support the 2015 Nepalese earthquake relief, for example. *shrug*

smithbs · Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:50 pm

My impression of the Qatari C-17s was to make the Qatar presence known on various humanitarian and disaster relief missions. They are giant flying flags, after all - I've seen A7-MAB and can vouch that you won't mistake it for someone else's C-17. Other than that, I didn't think that they flew much, as I have a theory that much of the military hardware in that region is parked and showed off, but not really "used" as such. And if they were involved in nefarious transport missions (which I doubt), I would even more doubt that they would use a giant flying flag of an aircraft to advertise it.

Phosphorus · Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:40 am

Haven't seen this posted anywhere else on this forum yet. It looks like India will get the sole unsold C-17 that was sitting on Boeing's inventory:
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/19682/ ... 36_Million
and
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 · Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:34 pm

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)

"In addition to the sale of the lone C-17, the US also approved is a sale of 22 General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper drones to the country, for $22 billion."
Huh? One billion dollars for each Reaper? Wow some Indian government/military would be filthy rich. Lets say there are 22 pockets to be lined, meaning each person will reap (pun) something like USD983 millions. Even if its tenfold at 220 persons, that would be 98.3M. Can someone tell be how to rub shoulders with those guys.
Seriously, I suppose, the writer mean 22 billion ₹ (Indian Rupees).

Tugger · Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:06 pm

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 · Sun Aug 20, 2017 9:49 am

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

Still, almost 100USD 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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_A ... Q-9_Reaper

Stitch · Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:53 pm

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 · Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:05 pm

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.

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.

So 22 fly-aways and then add decades worth of support.

Tugg

Ozair · Sun Aug 20, 2017 9:37 pm

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.

Dutchy · Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:02 am

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.

So are we talking about 22 CAP units, so 88a/c in all? Then the cost would make sense.

bunumuring · Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:03 pm

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 · Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:17 pm

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

If you read the last few posts you would have seen it's going to India.

IIRC though, the USAF was willing to sell a few C-17's if need be. So a ANZAC venture may not be impossible.
I was hoping the SAAF would pick up a few so they didn't need to keep leasing the Russian aircraft.

Phosphorus · Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:10 pm

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/

Slug71 · Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:02 pm

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 · Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:12 pm

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 · Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:52 pm

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.

Apparently my reading comprehension sucks today. Not enough coffee yet.
India's procurements are a mess the last few years.

Ozair · Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:10 pm

Slug71 wrote:

Apparently my reading comprehension sucks today. Not enough coffee yet.
India's procurements are a mess the last few years.

I think we could change last few to last 25...

Ozair · Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:17 pm

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/

Looks like India will get the last C-17 with the deal finally approved.

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.

https://theprint.in/2017/12/20/india-set-to-get-the-worlds-last-available-c-17-globemaster/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

kanban · Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:38 pm

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 · Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:35 pm

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)

So if you consider that ten airframes have been in service for approx 4 years, then 12000 hours equates to 300 hours per year per airframe. An original requirement for the C-17 program was a service life of 30,000 hours per airframe, so if India kept running the fleet at 300 hours each per year the airframes could fly another 96 years...

Seems like they are currently under utilized but the whole fleet only arrived by end of 2014. I expect that fleet hours will increase as India gains experience with the airframe and India becomes more expeditionary.

Just to compare, the USAF fly approximately 1 million flight hours every 5 years or so with its fleet of C-17s. If we said the fleet was approx 200 aircraft between 2010 and 2015 (may be a bit higher than that), then we have approximately 1000 flight hours per year. The US obviously has a much higher presence overseas as well as ongoing operations in the Middle East so that 1000 hours may be a bit higher than what would be considered average.

Ozair · Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:12 pm

Ozair wrote:

Looks like India will get the last C-17 with the deal finally approved.

FMS contract for the last C-17 going to India has been awarded.

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.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 4262m.html

Faro · Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:09 am

WIederling wrote:
bunumuring wrote:
4 x Qatar

What does Qatar actually use these frames for?

Moving Racing Camels ?

Weapons to ISIS in Syria?

If you had staggering amounts of money popping out of the ground to feed on...you would also develop new, unsuspected yet imperiously necessary appetites...

Faro

Phosphorus · Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:30 pm

Mods, I hope this is permitted post; if not -- please delete.

I have seen no real news of the last available C-17, waiting for India to pick it up. Was it eventually delivered? Or is it still sitting as a white tail in the US?

Stitch · Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:57 pm

Appears to have been delivered in August: https://thediplomat.com/2019/08/india-t ... ed-states/

Phosphorus · Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:13 pm

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 · Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:16 pm

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.

Phosphorus · Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:33 pm

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.

Could be. But what if Qatari or Australian or UAE's orders did not come through? It's not like those deals were confirmed, when line shutdown date (and number of white-tails to be built) was decided. Yes, there were hopes and aspirations, and sales teams were running with their hairs on fire; but until orders are booked -- they are not final. (One could argue that the sheer small number of available frames could entice some of the buyers to make a move, rather than taking their time to haggle and bargain and procrastinate).

Then Boeing would be sitting on unsold frames, and subject to ridicule from over the place. Wall Street would be particularly keen to take shots at them -- at quarter a billion $ each, these things are expensive inventory to be warehousing, with no sale prospects.

They took a risk with 10 frames -- and it paid off (though the last sale took years to complete). They could take a risk with 12 -- and it might have paid off (with last sale also probably taking years to complete). They could have escalated risk to 13 frames and above -- and would look like idiots.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net