Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: Morocco sign up for F-16

  1. #1
    Defense Moderator
    Defense Professional
    Lei Feng Protege
    xinhui's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 May 06
    Posts
    7,980

    Morocco sign up for F-16

    http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...0:morocco-sign
    -up-for-f-16&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107

    Morocco sign up for F-16

    Written by defenceWeb
    Tuesday, 12 January 2010 11:40

    Lockheed Martin has been awarded an $841,877,905 contract to provide for 24 F-16 Block 52
    aircraft to the government of Morocco in a deal on the cards since 2007.

    The Pentagon in a statement last month added that the deal included advanced counter
    measure system electronic warfare system, along with associated support equipment,
    alternate mission equipment and support elements.

    It is not clear if the award also includes the Pratt & Whitney F100-229 engines or
    air-launched weapons. According to a press release in 2007 by the Defense Security
    Cooperation Agency, the full value of the deal could rise to $2.4 billion.

    The Associated Press reports Morocco is acquiring the aircraft through the US Air Force,
    which is processing the contract on behalf of Morocco within the Foreign Military Sales
    (FMS) process.

    The amount of the contract award shows that Morocco is paying $35 million per F-16 Block
    52, which includes advanced countermeasures, electronic warfare and support equipment.

    Lockheed won the contract in 2007 after a presumed deal for the Dassault Rafale fell apart
    reportedly over conflicting messages between the French government and the manufacturer,
    The AP noted.

    Egypt struck a similar deal with the US last month, signing a deal to buy up to 24 of the
    same aircraft in a deal worth up to $3.2 billion on December 24. The Moroccan deal was
    announced December 21.

    Last October Morocco requested the US to provide it via the FMS three Boeing CH-47D
    Chinook heavy helicopters and associated parts, equipment and logistical support for an
    estimated cost of $134 million.
    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

  2. #2
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    18 Nov 05
    Location
    Suburban Ohio, I commute to redneck land on the we
    Posts
    1,068
    Nice airplane nice country seems like everyone wins.

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Posts
    1,401
    $0.841bn for 24 frames for Morocco, and $3.2bn for the same number of air frames for Egypt . Putting a single price for a fighter a/c is simply hopeless.

  4. #4
    Regular
    Join Date
    29 Mar 10
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    54
    I think, if Morocco goes for buying refurbished F16 then it would be more economically suitable for them, as they can buy more aircraft with same money.

  5. #5
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    7,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Zinja View Post
    $0.841bn for 24 frames for Morocco, and $3.2bn for the same number of air frames for Egypt . Putting a single price for a fighter a/c is simply hopeless.
    The difference is usually in the back end...how many spares, tech support, rebuild options down the road, avionics upgrades, etc.

    It also depends how much US taxpayer FMS funding is thrown in to help cover the cost.
    “Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something.”
    - Robert A. Heinlein

  6. #6
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    România
    Posts
    1,700
    24 AMARC Block 25s around 1.3 bln $ for training, technical assistance and "revitalization''
    Yeah that would be us:

    Now if I could just erase the knowledge of how much Poland Payed for they're Block 52s from my head )
    J'ai en marre.

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    2,493
    Only Block 52's? I thought they would've ordered Block 60's, at least. But, then again, they did place the order several years ago, maybe the Block 60's weren't available yet.

    "Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990

  8. #8
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    You can never determine the unit cost from these deals. They are all about the offsets.

    The Poland deal was $3.5 Billion for 48 frames plus engine spares, weapons, training, etc.

    Offsets in that deal included a GM plant expansion and a Motorola public communication project, among others.

    You just can't use the contract price to figure out anything- you have to have the whole picture, or you end up thinking one country paid 2 or 3 times what another one paid.

    It's never that way.

    Even in a pure sale with no offsets, the unit cost of the AC are only 40-50% of the total.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    România
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by highsea View Post
    You can never determine the unit cost from these deals. They are all about the offsets.
    If my math does not fail me the offsets must be substantial to cover the only 19 millions/airframe difference between a brand new block 52 and a AMARC block 25 with training, technical assistance and "revitalization''.
    J'ai en marre.

  10. #10
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    ^^^ Are you talking about the Poland deal? The offsets totaled somewhere around $9 Billion.

    The thing is, these deals are very complicated and involve areas completely unrelated to the aircraft purchases. People on these forums try to divide the number of frames by the contract and get a meaningful answer, and it's not possible.

    As US company may get an upgrade or purchase contract for X dollars, but a certain percentage that money has to be spent in the country of origin- plants built or subsystems contracted to local companies, and there are always other agreements for unrelated work.

    So Boeing might upgrade your Hornets and you might provide 747 cargo doors in the same deal.

    You can have a really big contract, but the portion that is actually going to the aircraft is only a fraction of the body of work under the contract. Unless you know the offsets, you can't tell what's what.

    It's a mistake to assume there is "X" dollars between this version and that version based on previous contracts or tenders, since the offsets will vary. Those AMARC frames don't belong to Lockheed- they belong to the US taxpayer. The Gov't may give them away if they think it's appropriate.
    Last edited by highsea; 09 Apr 10, at 19:25.

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    România
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by highsea View Post
    ^^^ Are you talking about the Poland deal? The offsets totaled somewhere around $9 Billion.
    Yes, thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by highsea View Post
    The thing is, these deals are very complicated and involve areas completely unrelated to the aircraft purchases. People on these forums try to divide the number of frames by the contract and get a meaningful answer, and it's not possible.

    As US company may get an upgrade or purchase contract for X dollars, but a certain percentage that money has to be spent in the country of origin- plants built or subsystems contracted to local companies, and there are always other agreements for unrelated work.

    So Boeing might upgrade your Hornets and you might provide 747 cargo doors in the same deal.

    You can have a really big contract, but the portion that is actually going to the aircraft is only a fraction of the body of work under the contract. Unless you know the offsets, you can't tell what's what.

    It's a mistake to assume there is "X" dollars between this version and that version based on previous contracts or tenders, since the offsets will vary. Those AMARC frames don't belong to Lockheed- they belong to the US taxpayer. The Gov't may give them away if they think it's appropriate.
    Actually I was trying to understand why we are going to pay 1.3 bln $ just for refurbishment and training.
    J'ai en marre.

  12. #12
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    Actually I was trying to understand why we are going to pay 1.3 bln $ just for refurbishment and training.
    Oh, okay. Why didn't you just ask?

    It'll be a little more than a fresh paint job and a box of manuals.

    Basically, you will be getting new jets.

    They will go onto the assembly jig, get stripped down to the bare airframe, all the wiring and plumbing will be pulled, the cockpit will be removed, the airframes will get any new parts and reinforcements needed to zero-hour the airframe and accomodate for upthrusted engines, the landing gear will be replaced, you'll get a new cockpit with new multi-function displays, a new ejection seat, new avionics and radar, new engines, new radios and IFF transponders, whatever ECM/EW/Datalinking equipment is specified, you will get armament, spares, pilot and maintainer training, support and maintenence equipment, probably a maintenance contract, and a bunch more stuff that I am not thinking of right off the top of my head.

  13. #13
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    2,493
    Quote Originally Posted by highsea View Post
    Oh, okay. Why didn't you just ask?

    It'll be a little more than a fresh paint job and a box of manuals.

    Basically, you will be getting new jets.

    They will go onto the assembly jig, get stripped down to the bare airframe, all the wiring and plumbing will be pulled, the cockpit will be removed, the airframes will get any new parts and reinforcements needed to zero-hour the airframe and accomodate for upthrusted engines, the landing gear will be replaced, you'll get a new cockpit with new multi-function displays, a new ejection seat, new avionics and radar, new engines, new radios and IFF transponders, whatever ECM/EW/Datalinking equipment is specified, you will get armament, spares, pilot and maintainer training, support and maintenence equipment, probably a maintenance contract, and a bunch more stuff that I am not thinking of right off the top of my head.
    Great info, hs! I had no idea there was so much involved in zero-timing an airframe. Sounds like you're basically getting a brand-new airplane for a used airplane price. Which powerplant do you think they will get, an uprated F-100-PW-229, or an F-110-GE-129?

    "Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990

  14. #14
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    ...Which powerplant do you think they will get, an uprated F-100-PW-229, or an F-110-GE-129?
    I don't know. It's up to the user, but it will be easier to keep whatever was there- if they were Pratt powered, stay with Pratt. Less changes to the bays that way.

    edit to add: rumor says PW-F100-220 IPE (29K AB thrust).

    Don't quote me.
    Last edited by highsea; 09 Apr 10, at 21:27.

  15. #15
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    2,493
    Quote Originally Posted by highsea View Post
    I don't know. It's up to the user, but it will be easier to keep whatever was there- if they were Pratt powered, stay with Pratt. Less changes to the bays that way.
    Since they're old Block 25's, I'm assuming that would mean F-100-PW-229's.

    "Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 13 Feb 08,, 05:32
  2. Sunny, Modern, Morocco
    By astralis in forum International Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07 Oct 06,, 03:04
  3. Kids, Dog Solve Sign Theft Caper
    By THL in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 Jul 06,, 06:15
  4. Pastor supports Koran flushing
    By illusha in forum International Politics
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 30 May 05,, 05:29

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •