someone has probably already mentioned this but im going to go ahead and mention it aswell, Why the C-17 why not the Antonov 124's that we are already chartering from the russians they offered to sell us some and it it larger and costs less. Here is something i read on the internet
One citizen's response to the 'intended' purchase of four Boeing C-17s
Honourable Senators, Members of Parliament:
According to news reports, DND is about to purchase four (4) Boeing C-17s for 300 million each, plus sign a 20 year maintenance contact for 2 billion dollars.
I will try to be short and simple in my arguments.
Four aircraft at $ 300 million = $ 1.2 billion – add to that $ 2.0 billion in contracts,
and it adds up to a total of $ 3.2 billion.
Aircraft cannot fly eternally. Each has what is called a 'service life', which is the number of hours after which the airframe must be retired. The Boeing C-17s have a service life of 30,000 hours.
Since we are spending 3.2 billion dollars on 4 aircraft that each have a service life of 30,000 hours, we can divide 3.2 billion dollars by 4 aircraft, which gives us the cost per Boeing C-17 over its life, than further divide by 30,000 hours which gives us what one hour of flight will cost Canadian taxpayers.
The hourly cost will be $ 26,666.
We have not yet put any pilots or loadmasters on board, paid the mechanics, put any fuel in the aircraft, or added other costs that are not included in the maintenance and parts contracts.
If we just add fuel, these aircraft burn about 6 tons an hour, which comes out to close to $ 3000 an hour of flight. Its easy to see that these aircraft will cost the Canadian taxpayer over $30,000 per hour to fly.
The Antonov 124s we had been chartering cost about $13,000 per hour, which includes just about everything, but they carry 120 tons of cargo. The Boeing
C-17 will only take 77 tons, about half the payload.
[Author’s Update: Increasing fuel costs (up from US$3,700/hr in 2002 to US$8600/ hr in 2005) will raise An-124 charter costs you around $20,000 per hour rather than the older figure of $13,000/hr. The NATO SALIS aircraft will probably cost more due to NATO requirements – dedicated base, standby, guarantees required, etc.]
So the hourly cost of flying our shiny C-17s will be about 2.5 times the cost of chartering Antonovs, but since the Boeing carries 1.55 times less cargo, the cost per ton carried will be about 3.9 times greater with the Boeings. That covers the cost issue.
This cost issue is the very reason that no other armed forces in any country outside the US has purchased any Boeing C-17s. In fact, the plant is about to be closed. This is also why, when Boeing attempted to market the aircraft as a civilian freighter, there was not a single order worldwide, not even in the US.
We are about to become the first suckers, thanks to Mr. Harper and his desperation at pleasing the White House. Even the UK (Mr. Blair) did not want to buy any C-17s. (The UK leased a few, waiting for the Airbus A400M).
[CASR update: In the end, both the UK and Australia decided to buy C-17s, each driven by their own particular political and military imperatives – so, Canada might not be the 'first adopter' – but we may very well be the last.]
The Boeing C-17s are going to be purchased by DND through 'sole-sourcing',
which means that no alternative bids are going to be accepted. Here's what Canadian law has to say about sole - source buying.
When i read this i asked myself why are we buying these aircraft?
