I know all the information that is posted is wrong. It was the same case with the M1 Abrams and with the C130 orders. The problem is with the "DSCA notification for congress" is NOT the real amount.
The example I can give you.
C130 aircraft purchase. "DSCA notification" amount was $1.5Bn.
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/3 ... _08-73.pdf
The ACTUAL AMOUNT in the contracts was $433M! for 6 aircraft.
You see, the $4Bn is the "DSCA notification" amount which has NO RELATION to the actual amount for the cost of the aircraft! The FMS sales process is a "standardised" sales process to ensure that no bribing or overcharging happens by integrating all international aircraft sales into the US Air Force order stream with Lockheed Martin.
Now since Iraq has not actually signed a contract for F16s, I cannot send you a link to the final price. But here is a recent F16 purchase with a similar specification as Iraq but EXCLUDING armaments.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... rocco.html
Quote:
Lockheed Martin has been awarded a nearly $841.9 million contract by the US government to deliver 24 F-16 Block 52 fighters under a previously announced deal with Morocco.
The US Air Force 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.
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.
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.
as you can see the unit price of an F16 was about $35M. But you will note the original DSCA notification for the above contract mentioned the price as $2.4Bn
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/3 ... _08-20.pdf
See? Did morocco pay $2.4Bn or $849M?
Iraq's F16s (if the price is $900M) are $50M per aircraft! which is PERFECTLY NORMAL.
If you make the order to "$4.2bn" (as per the DSCA notification and the press talk) it would be $233M per aircraft!! THINK ABOUT IT!
I will give another example of the "DSCA notification" issue.
The M1A1SA tanks Iraq bought. The "DSCA notification" amount was $2.16Bn
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/3 ... /09-08.pdf
The actual amount was split among a number of separate contracts and totals $242M:
The tanks: $198M
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 44452.html
The transporters and parts: $44M
http://bit.ly/bzhtf6
That is a total of $242M for the 140 tanks and the transporters! (notice the difference between the CONTRACTS and the "DSCA notification").
$242M REAL NUMBER vs $2160M "DSCA Notification"!
This same issue came up when the sami al askari was talking about Iraq "buying $13Bn of weapons" from the US (when in fact the DSCA notification values were $13Bn! but the actual CONTRACT values were less than $4Bn!).
another example? The Iraqi swiftship patrol boats and OSVs
The DSCA notification says: $1.01Bn
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/3 ... /09-07.pdf
The contract value was:
$181M for first 9 boats (the other 6 were paid for by the US
http://pensacola.navyleague.us/newslett ... LAUG09.pdf)
$23.4M training
$3.5M for armour
$70M for the 2 OSVs
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/ ... 00260.html
total price = $181M + $23.4M + $3.5M + $70M = $278M that is the price Iraq paid, NOT $1010M as iin the DSCA notification.
Ok. so we can look at an example where the "DSCA notification" was LESS than the actual contract value!
The T6A texan trainers. DSCA says $210M for 20 aircraft.
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/3 ... /09-06.pdf
Actual price.
$170M for first 7 aircraft
$86.6M for last 8 aircraft
= $256m FOR ONLY 15 AIRCRAFT.
SO the lesson is. DSCA notification can give us information about the TECHNICAL details of a purchase BUT NOT about the PRICE (which is a "placeholder" and not intended as an accurate measure of the contract value).