Ready, set, go...
This sounds like a good job for our spanking new C-17. I'm guessing the current Herc fleet is already somewhat stressed just keeping up with the normal Afghanistan supply run.
August 12, 2007Martin Ouellet
Canadian Press
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan–Toting obsolete equipment and an arsenal dating back to the Soviet era, the Afghan National Army says it's waiting for modern weapons promised by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.
posted by WE Speak at 7:55 a.m.
14 Comments:
not sure if you have been catching any of the CTV Trenton coverage with David Aiken . . . just frikk'n pathetic.
Said the planes cost $400m each, that we used to have to rent "Andropov's from the Russians (hope Yuri's wife doesn't know he's freelancing)
Said it was too big & heavy for the runways . . . How did it land ??
On and on.
The lady at the studio end was even thicker if that is possible " So David, each plane costs us $1 Billion ??
Just a complete hash of wrong information very poorly presented.
Shame on CTV, but one shouldn't be surprised.
Actually, I emailed David about the Andropov bit. He knew he made a mistake, but there wasn't much he could do, it was live when he first did the piece. It was recorded and played that way the rest of the day.
Too heavy for the runways - I think they do have to do some runway re-inforcement.
I thought David's piece was good, but I agree on the studio anchor. Seemed to be going out of her way to highlight how expensive it was, controversial, might cause cutbacks...
David works hard at getting the facts straight on military stories and isn't afraid to acknowledge when he makes a mistake. He actively engages people on blogs and has even posted on Army.ca forums. On military affairs, he's head and shoulders above just about any other national reporter out there.
On military affairs, he's head and shoulders above just about any other national reporter out there.
Television reporter, perhaps. Not print, though.
Being such a good guy, I hope he gets on air and makes an apology.
Just has to say "I didn't know the price of the aircraft, but rather than saying so on air, I guessed at a number I thought was reasonable. I was wrong"
"I also failed to explain that these four aircraft replaces 16 of the new Hercules aircraft we plan to buy, so instead of having to buy 30 new C130J's, we now only need to buy half as many, saving billions of dollars."
He does usually try, but when you have a public broadcast forum, trying doesn't cut it. If ya mess up, ya should fess up.
I'll be waiting for the on-air apology.
oh ya . . . and the runways are fine. It is the ramps/standing areas that need some attending to. Very ordinary stuff.
the price of the actual aircraft is about $300 $Cdn per . . . same as one of the new Boeing 777's that Air Canada just purchased.
Sounds like a lot but not really.
I'm sure there are a lot of people in the world who would be surprised to be told that AK series rifles, especially more recently manufactured ones that are probably being supplied to the Afghans, are "outdated Soviet-era weapons"--see "Production outside of Russia":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
Typical stupid Canadian reporting.
The Afghans are compeletely familiar with AKs; I don't see why we would try to supply them with C-7s.
Mark
Ottawa
"Television reporter, perhaps. Not print, though."
I agree.
Television very rarely does on air apologies.
And anyone who's ever done live radio or TV will tell you that shit happens and if you're luck you get to fix it, but most of the time you don't.
A comment at David Akin's blog:
"Dear Mr Akin,
I wonder where you get the $400 million per aircraft?
Following costs are from Defense Industry Daily (2006):
"The C-17 sale itself will be handled as a direct commercial sale rather than a foreign military sale, in order to facilitate the industrial offsets that its purchase requires. As such, the 4 plane order is unlikely to be announced by the DSCA. Based on Australia's recent order, the likely cost is around USD $180-200 million per aircraft.
This proposed USD $1.3 billion sale of related equipment and support will involve various contractors, including:
* Boeing in Long Beach, CA (C-17 builder)
* Boeing Training Systems in St. Louis, MO
* AAI Services Corporation in Goose Creek, SC (AVS-9 NVGs)
* United Technologies in East Hartford, CT (F117 Engines)
* Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation in Rolling Meadows, IL (LAIRCM)
* Additional subcontractors may be needed depending on the exact nature of the contracting arrangements."
So at this point that's about USD $500 million per plane if you add the support contract to the actual cost of the airframes.
Then there's the life-cycle cost:
"...Canada's entire program has a limit of about USD $3 billion."
Perhaps you divided the first figure in this DND document by 4 and rounded down:
"The estimated total project cost for this strategic lift aircraft acquisition is $1.8 billion, plus an estimated contract value of $1.6 billion for 20 years of in-service support..."
But that $400 million figure, as the DID story above shows, includes a lot more than the cost of the airframe--and a lot less than if the in-service support were included. If all costs are considered one might say the price of one plane is $800 million.
Lots of fun with figures, but it would be helpful if when you give these costs per plane you would make clear what is included, and what is not.
Mark
Ottawa'
I might add good on Mr Akin for publishing his photos and for his enthusiastic response to the aircraft itself.
Mark
Ottawa
A good comment by Fred at Daimnation!:
"over at Army.ca David said the $400m came from DND sources.
Figuring cost of “ a C17” is complex because you can’t really just buy “a plane”, but if you could, the base price for a spanking new one is (was in July 2006) $US 195 million.
Ref:
July 31/06: Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas Corp. in Long Beach, CA received a $780 million firm-fixed-price, undefinitized delivery order contract that will provide 4 C-17 aircraft to the Royal Australian Air Force ($195 million per plane).
[External Link]
Then there is the burdened price of a current model C17, which includes “Training and Initial Spares”. Having been a manager in an Integrated Logistics Support Department for a major Defence contractor, I can tell you that phrase covers a lot of possibilities and quantities. So that means it is a variable price, with different customers buying more or less training and initial spares. Depends on your Support model and a whole raft of variables that are assessed and quantified, often very subjectively.
I have googled articles with prices ranging from $US 225m - $US 330m.
One source, usually reliable has the Canadian burdened price per CC177 + Training and Initial Spares is $US 330.8million. Convert that over to Canuck_bucks and it might explain DND sources telling David about $Cdn 400 million per aircraft.
Ref [External Link]
“Current USAF C-17 unit cost is US$330.8M including training and spares.”
The big bulk of the rest of published price is the 20 year maintenance deal, which really skews the aircraft price in the mind of John & Jane Q public.
It would be like Honda saying the price of a new Accord is $155,000 dollars – the life cycle cost of 15 years gas, insurance, repairs etc.
A complex area that neither DND or the MSM has explained in simple, easily understood language.
I would have gone with the base price number, converted to $Cdn 210 million dollars."
Mark
Ottawa
Further to Fred:
Mr Akin (keep reading) has an explanation for the figures and gets good reviews from the military. I still wish the figures were made more understandable to the public.
Mark
Ottawa
That's kind of a no win for the military on the big program. They never cease to be political animals on so many levels. In terms of communicating the price, everything you've listed makes it pretty difficult. If you only report the actual purchase price, you're accused of hiding costs. If you report the overall price, then we're down the road of do we really need to spend x billions for this? Providing an overall price with a comprehensive breakdown lets people pick and choose what they want to focus on, which usually is the big ticket price without explaining the life-cycle costs.
Overall I think the real difficulty is explaining it in a 30 second clip, because that's about all much of the public will tune in to. On the other hand, it doesn't explain why most print media do such a poor job.
In terms of communicating the price, everything you've listed makes it pretty difficult. If you only report the actual purchase price, you're accused of hiding costs. If you report the overall price, then we're down the road of do we really need to spend x billions for this?
Bingo. The only winning comms approach is to focus on national pride and regional benefits - but the pricing is always an issue no matter how you spin it.
Post a Comment
<< Home