Actual ex-factory price of C-130J
US $64 million and change, as of December, 2006--and these are stretched and tanker versions (text subscriber only).
Lockheed Martin has received $128 million from the Pentagon as the initial payment on a $256.2-million contract for three USAF C-130J-30 combat delivery aircraft and one KC-130J-30 for the Marine Corps. They are slated for delivery in 2010. That brings total C-130J orders to 186.The Cdn $5 billion cost for the 17 C-130Js we are planning to buy is based on life-cycle costs (training, maintenance, parts, etc., etc., etc.--I made several comments at this link).
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 5:22 p.m.
3 Comments:
Ok, so is this an example of politicians being overly honest or is this an example of politicians/bureucrats being obtuse and not explaining themselves well or is this a case of lazy journalism... or is it a marvelous perfect storm of all three?
Cameron: The Liberals used to like using life-cycle costs to illustrate how terribly expensive military equipment is; I think the Conservatives like to us use it to show much they are spending.
The problem is that, if you don't buy new equipment you still pay large (and increasing with age) life-cycle costs for old equipment. Indeed those costs may be greater than those for new, improved equipment.
So an honest accounting would be one that compared the life-cycle costs of continuing current equipment with the similar cost of the new equipment, plus the initial capital ("ex-factory") cost of the new.
But I think you are right in speaking of "a marvelous perfect storm"--and especially of lazy journalists who make no effort to explain the different costs, and tend to adhere to the Liberal approach mentioned above.
Mark
Ottawa
All of which puts to lie this idea that one party or the other has the market cornered on using the CF as a football.
Post a Comment
<< Home