# Boeing to shut down C-17 production



## Blackadder1916

Boeing to shut down C-17 production 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060818/ap_on_bi_ge/boeing_cargo_plane

By GARY GENTILE, AP Business Writer 

Boeing Co. said Friday it will begin shutting down production of its C-17 cargo plane, the last to be built in Southern California, because Congress has not funded new purchases.

The decision could affect thousands of Boeing workers in four states and thousands of others employed by companies that supply parts for the C-17.

*The Chicago-based company said it has told its suppliers and subcontractors to stop work on planes beyond those already on order. * Boeing said it has enough orders to continue production through the middle of 2009.

The company has spent millions to keep its supply line active, in hopes Congress would authorize new purchases. But Friday, Boeing said it could no longer afford to keep the program going.

"The C-17 is one of the Defense Department's most successful acquisition programs ever," said Ron Marcotte, vice president and general manager of Boeing Global Mobility Systems. "But we can't continue carrying the program without additional orders from the U.S. Government."

The decision affects long lead-time items purchased from suppliers, many of which have to be ordered as long as 34 months in advance.

The company left open the possibility that it could continue production if it receives new orders.

"This move will be the first step in an orderly shutdown of the production supply chain, should no further orders be received from the U.S. government," Boeing said in a press release.

The move could ultimately affect 5,500 Boeing employees in California, Missouri, Georgia and Arizona who are directly tied to the C-17 program. Thousands more work to support existing planes. Boeing this week signed a contract to provide support and spare parts for the Royal Australian Air Force's C-17 fleet.

But the decision will first hit the 25,000 employees of the nearly 700 companies in 42 states that supply parts and systems for the plane, Boeing said.

The giant cargo plane, nicknamed the Globemaster III, has been used since 1991 to airlift heavy equipment and transport troops. Supporters say its ability to land on short dirt runways has helped take the load off supply trucks that come under heavy fire in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Production could be restarted if Congress approves funding, which could happen as early as next month. But restarting the supply chain would be costly and add millions of dollars to the cost of each plane — about $154 million each.

The C-17 plant is the last major airplane factory left in Southern California, which once was a center for aircraft production. Earlier this year, Boeing delivered its last 717 passenger jet, also built in Long Beach.



Will this announcement have any effect on the acquisition of heavy lifters by Canada?  Will the government accelerate the process?


----------



## SupersonicMax

The list of the first guys to be trained on the C-17 in Oklahoma was out just yerterday so I guess we WILL have C-17s!

Max


----------



## civmick

I read a different article that basically said Boeing already committed to more C-17s that it had sold to keep the line open this long, and that essentially the RAAF, the 5th RAF and the CF C-17s were pretty much sold out of that "overproduction" and that there might be a few "white tails" left even after the CF get theirs.  Can't find the original to link at the moment though.


----------



## toglmonster

Does anyone know, or have a educated guess as to where the C-17 will be stationed up here ???


----------



## GO!!!

toglmonster said:
			
		

> Does anyone know, or have a educated guess as to where the C-17 will be stationed up here ???



Almost certainly Trenton. 

Trenton has the existing infrastructure, is somewhat central, and close to a large number of CF units.


----------



## Zoomie

toglmonster said:
			
		

> Does anyone know, or have a educated guess as to where the C-17 will be stationed up here ???



Initially Trenton - but there are talks of other un-disclosed locations possibly fitting the bill.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Trenton is already at Max Capacity.  Mirabel or Winnipeg are next on the list..

Max


----------



## ringo

Boeing had been trying to interest NATO in a few C-17, if there are whitetails at the end of production Canada should aquire one or two additional aircraft.


----------



## Zoomie

The initial allotment of 4 aircraft will meet the CFs need - as any number over zero is better than what we have now.

Keeping in mind that this baby burns 20,000 pounds of fuel per hour (approx 10,000 litres/hr) - we must be aware that the operating costs alone for this fleet will outstrip most, if not every, vehicle currently in CF service.

There is talk of these aircraft joining 437 Sqn in Trenton - who currently fly the CC-150 Polaris.  Four aircraft does not necessarily warrant the standing up of an entirely new squadron - the Airforce is in a PY saving binge.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

How will the shut down effect the fleet we do get ie repairs, parts etc.


----------



## GO!!!

Quagmire said:
			
		

> How will the shut down effect the fleet we do get ie repairs, parts etc.



Probably not all that much, as much of the maintenance and repair work is written into the contract, to be done by Boeing over the life of the product.

The parts come from a myriad of smaller suppliers, so if Boeing is on the hook for maintenance and repair, I would expect that they will make a final large order of parts from their suppliers before they shut down.

The real problem will be at the end of the maintenance contract when we have no - one to buy parts from because production shut down 2 decades ago!!


----------



## aesop081

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The real problem will be at the end of the maintenance contract when we have no - one to buy parts from because production shut down 2 decades ago!!



We have aircraft older than 20 years who's servicing contracts have long expired and production long shut down.  Although OEM ( original equipment manufacturer) parts are usualy not available, some companies specialize in providing such parts for older aircraft.


----------



## Gunnerlove

Don't worry about parts, someone out there is already planning to provide needed parts at a huge profit. Big money solves a great number of problems and everything related to aircraft is big money.

For example you can still order a brand new (2006 build date) wing spar for your spitfire, and it is better than OEM.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Trenton is already at Max Capacity.  Mirabel or Winnipeg are next on the list..



I thought Ujjie D. told us they were going to be stationed somewhere in a secret underground facility in the 'States, the whereabouts of which would be known only to Amerikkaners, and that we would have to get an Act of Congress every time we wanted to use them ...


----------



## Zoomie

LOL - yeh that would be great.

Winnipeg, Mirabel or Trenton - take your pick, it will be one of those.


----------



## DavidAkin

I phoned Boeing up this morning and asked them about this shutdown. 
Boeing's guy told me that Boeing will be making 44 C-17s between now and the shutdown of the line in 2009. Though Canada has not yet signed the deal with Boeing, Canada's planes are part of the 44. He says Canada likely won't get the last planes. First plane can be delivered mid-07 with the last one delivered in 2008.


----------



## geo

There was something out last month that there's an agreement whereby we will be getting 1 C17 out of the RAAF order and they would get one off of ours.  Something that was discussed when the Aussie PM visited earlier this summer.


----------



## Spencer100

David,

Great to see someone from the "evil" MSM getting info from the horse's mouth 

Keep up the good work


----------



## Cloud Cover

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Probably not all that much, as much of the maintenance and repair work is written into the contract, to be done by Boeing over the life of the product.
> 
> The parts come from a myriad of smaller suppliers, so if Boeing is on the hook for maintenance and repair, I would expect that they will make a final large order of parts from their suppliers before they shut down.
> 
> The real problem will be at the end of the maintenance contract when we have no - one to buy parts from because production shut down 2 decades ago!!



Interesting. You must have seen the contract.


----------



## GO!!!

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Interesting. You must have seen the contract.



Why yes, I had my people call up Boeing legal div, who couriered me a copy, did'nt you? :

Considering that;
- the only C-17 maintenance facilities are in the US, 
- this was a stated aim of the acquisition package, 
- it is done by the other two nations that use the C-17 (UK/Aus)
- and it makes sense,

it's a pretty reasonable assumption to me.


----------



## Strike

> ... and it makes sense,



Right.  When does anything we ever do get done because "it makes sense"?


----------



## big bad john

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16742938.1131572689.Q3Jt0cOa9dUAAHzOZ4o&modele=jdc_34

Sen. Talent Keeps C-17 Line Open, Secures Ten Additional Planes in Defense Bill 
  
  
(Source: Senator Jim Talent; issued Sept. 21, 2006)
  
   
  
 WASHINGTON, D.C. --- U.S. Senator Jim Talent (R-Mo.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today announced that he has secured funding for 10 additional C-17s, totaling $2.1 billion, extending the production line of the aircraft. Sen. Talent’s request, in addition to the eight planes requested by the President, is included in the Senate-House Defense Appropriations Conference Report for FY2007. Sen. Talent said that the bill will bring the Air Force inventory to 191, and foreign sales will bring total production to nearly 205. The new C-17s will be bought as "attrition" aircraft to replace older transports that have been over flown.  

"This is a huge victory for our military, our nation and Missouri," said Sen. Talent, Chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, which oversees the C-17 program. "There are few systems more important to our armed forces than this aircraft. The C-17 is the transport of choice, able to carry troops, vehicles and supplies to any point on the globe making its reliability and versatility unmatched. The purchase of these additional C-17s provides needed aircraft to our military and will keep the line open for our highly skilled workers in Missouri."  

"I want to thank Senator Jim Talent for his strong leadership on moving the C-17 Globemaster III program forward," said Jim Albaugh, President and CEO of Integrated Defense Systems of Boeing Company. "Jim pulled together a broad bipartisan coalition in the Senate to make this happen. As a result of the Senator’s leadership, Congress will authorize funding for 10 additional C-17s which will extend the production of this remarkable aircraft. The several thousand workers in Missouri, and the 30,000 highly skilled workers across the country, who build the C-17 every day, owe Senator Talent their thanks."  

"On behalf of California, I want to thank Senator Talent for his strong leadership in pulling together a broad bipartisan coalition of his colleagues in Washington, D.C. to save this incredible aircraft," said Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. "I have been a long supporter of the C-17 aircraft and I have visited the production plant in Long Beach. Today I am pleased to learn that our Congressional leaders also see the importance of this vital resource for our armed services as they continue their fight against the enemies of democracy."  

Earlier this year, Sen. Talent secured $227.5 million for the purchase of an additional C-17 aircraft in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. In addition, Sen. Talent also worked on a bipartisan basis with U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) to authorize 42 new C-17s and assess the need for additional lift aircraft.  

-ends-


----------



## geo

> "I want to thank Senator Jim Talent for his strong leadership on moving the C-17 Globemaster III program forward," said Jim Albaugh, President and CEO of Integrated Defense Systems of Boeing Company. "Jim pulled together a broad bipartisan coalition in the Senate to make this happen. As a result of the Senator’s leadership, Congress will authorize funding for 10 additional C-17s which will extend the production of this remarkable aircraft. The several thousand workers in Missouri, and the 30,000 highly skilled workers across the country, who build the C-17 every day, owe Senator Talent their thanks."


While the C17 is a great aircraft..... I wonder what "riders" were attached to the bill for the swift passage of this bill.


----------



## gaspasser

" Build it and they will come". They will come here to Trenton.  We have the ramp space and runway length to handle the big birds.  Plus everything already comes and goes out of here. (yippee)There's always more room on the ramp for another biggie, expecially as we're getting rid of some of the Hercs (rumours abound).  And we can stop renting Antanovs and Illusions from former soviet countries. Keep our gas in our planes.  Our techs should be able to do most of the front line work, a wire is a wire...right?  The Air Force has plans to make improvements to the aerodrome by  "moving" a few buildings around, and adding onto exsisting hangers to accomadate the C-17's. 
But I'll be outta here by then.
 ;D


----------



## geo

gaspasser.... getting rid of some Hercs?.... we're buying & replacing, aren't we?


----------



## GAP

While it's nice to hear the line is going to stay open a little longer, Senator Trenton has a vested interest in the production staying ongoing, as in employment in the riding.


----------



## geo

yeah - per my post 22, one senator's priority is not necessarily another's.
Nasty little thing in the US called "riders" - they may pass appropriations for a boondogle on the back of a worthy cause.........


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> yeah - per my post 22, one senator's priority is not necessarily another's.
> Nasty little thing in the US called "riders" - they may pass appropriations for a boondogle on the back of a worthy cause.........



They usualy tack on a pay raise for themselves as an amendment......haha


----------



## gaspasser

geo said:
			
		

> gaspasser.... getting rid of some Hercs?.... we're buying & replacing, aren't we?



Roger, roger, I stand corrected.  But the fact remains, we're getting new airplanes.    
End  rumour. Out


----------



## ringo

IIRC 4 of are newer C-130's are tankers, the newest pair of herc's are lengthened versions, are these to remain in service after new herc's and c-17's are delivered?
With the current rate of hours US c-17's are flying I expect further US orders in the future, RAF RAAF CAF and NATO may all order additional aircraft, although in small quantities.


----------



## big bad john

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/09/c17-adds-orders-on-talent-not-luck/index.php

C-17 Adds Orders on Talent, Not Luck
Posted 27-Sep-2006 11:50
Related stories: Americas - USA, Boeing, Budgets, Issues - Political, Lobbying, Transport & Utility
Also on this day: 27-Sep-2006 » 

Still going...
(click to view full)DID has offered a lot of C-17 coverage recently, including the Lexington Institute's scathing characterization of the impending production line shutdown as "The Dumbest Weapons Decision of the Decade" as well as international orders by NATO (13-nation pool), Australia, Britain, and Canada. Past coverage has also included the Talent-Lieberman bill, which passed in the Senate as part of Congressional efforts to keep C-17 production alive and fund a larger fleet than the reduced figure of 180 aircraft that the Pentagon was willing to settle for. Now Senator Talent [R-MO] announced that he has secured funding for a total of 10 more C-17s in the Senate-House Defense Appropriations Conference Report for FY 2007. This $2.1 billion addition will be popular back home, as the C-17 supply chain and production lines include several thousand workers in Missouri. See Sen. Talent's release.

The Pentagon was going to request 8 planes to finish up production, and initial talk was for another 3 to provide extra replacements given the fleet's accelerated wear. This new bill adds 7 more planes to make 18, bringing the US fleet to 191 (Sen. Talent also secured $227.5 million for the purchase of an additional C-17 aircraft in the 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act). Foreign production (4 Australia, 5 Britain, 4 Canada, 4 NATO) will bring the lifetime production total to about 208, though there aren't all that many more foreign customer expected. With new orders set at 32 more planes (1+8+10+4+1+4+4), the Long Beach, CA plant has just over 2 more years of production left before its closure. This stretches its shut-down date from mid-2008 to early 2009.


----------



## geo

then they can commence refurbishing the older ones.............. cause at the rate they are currently using the planes, the C17s are tired puppies.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Anyone still for the A-400M?

_Aviation Week and Space Technology_ (Sept. 18) update: more reasons why Canada was right not to consider this yet-to-fly plane seriously as a CC-130 replacement or as an alternative to the C-17 (text subscriber only).



> Besides the A380, [BAE Systems CEO]Turner harbors concerns over at least one other Airbus development. He identifies the A400M military airlifter as a cause for worry. Senior Airbus officials deny there's any delay on the program. A first flight is scheduled for early 2008, with deliveries to begin in the second half of 2009...



And it is interesting that NATO is considering buying C-17s--above post too
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49093/post-452215.html#msg452215

Note A-400M bit (text subscriber only):



> The North Atlantic Treaty Organization hopes to sort out the purchase details for its fleet of 3-4 Boeing C-17s by early November, with the goal of fielding the first of the aircraft next year to help alleviate chronic shortages in strategic lift...
> 
> ...the C-17s will be owned by the alliance--only the second aircraft after the E-3 AWACS fleet to be acquired in that way. Arrangements call for an initial order of three aircraft, with the fourth carried as an option. How long the option will run is under negotiation with Boeing, and will largely be driven by the looming production line shutdown in 2009. Boeing had already built the NATO order into its plans, so the commitment won't extend the line's life...
> 
> Officials for the European Airbus Military A400M consortium say they, too, are in talks with NATO to take some of the aircraft. However, NATO officials note that's still a long way off, given the *A400M is years from being fielded* [my emphasis].
> 
> For Boeing, still pending is the firm commitment from *Sweden* [my emphasis] to take two C-17s the aircraft maker is banking on as part of its provision for building 18 more aircraft beyond the 184 in the basic production plan (180 go to the U.S. and four to the U.K.). Of those 18, four will go to Canada and Australia each, one more to the U.K., three more to the U.S. from a Congressional add-on and four to NATO as the transports. Boeing officials continue to argue for a larger U.S. fleet, holding onto a sliver of hope the line may remain open beyond 2009.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

Markl.... 
A400s are to CC130s
C17s have no equal in the airvbus arsenal.

With respect to the A400s, a plane on the drawing board does not an AIRplane make


----------



## Loachman

RAAUZYUW RCCLHAV6073 2851928-UUUU--RCCBMUA.
ZNR UUUUU ZOC
RXFKVA T E3A COMPONENT CCNAEWF GEILENKIRCHEN
RXFKBA T CFSU E DET RAMSTEIN
RXCAFDA T SACT HC 02
R 110812Z OCT 06
FM NDHQ CAS OTTAWA//CAS//
TO CANAIRGEN
INFO ZEN/NDHQ VCDS OTTAWA//VCDS//
ZEN/NDHQ ADM MAT OTTAWA//ADM MAT/DGMPD/DGAEPM/AETE//
ZEN/NDHQ ADM FIN CS OTTAWA//ADM FIN CS//
ZEN/NDHQ CLS OTTAWA//CLS//
ZEN/NDHQ CMS OTTAWA//CMS//
ZEN/NDHQ SJS OTTAWA//SJS DOS//
ZEN/CEFCOM HQ OTTAWA//COMD//
ZEN/CANADA COM HQ OTTAWA//COMD//
ZEN/CANOSCOM HQ OTTAWA//COMD//
ZEN/CANSOFCOM HQ OTTAWA//COMD//
ZEN/NDHQ ADM IE OTTAWA//ADM IE//
BT
UNCLAS CANAIRGEN 025/06 CAS 041
SIC KAN
CANAIRGEN 025/06 CAS 041
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
SUBJ: DESIGNATION OF C-17 MAIN OPERATING BASE (MOB)



PAGE 2 RCCLHAV6073 UNCLAS CANAIRGEN 025/06
REF: CANAIRGEN 024 CAS 039 071735Z SEP 06
1. ON 22 JUN 06, TB APPROVED THE PURCHASE OF FOUR AIRCRAFT TO 
ADDRESS CANADA S STRATEGIC AIRLIFT CAPABILITY SHORTFALL. AN 
EVALUATION BY ADM(MAT) STAFF HAS RECENTLY CONFIRMED THAT ONLY THE 
BOEING C-17 MEETS THE CF S MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS. INITIAL 
INDICATIONS ARE THAT THE FIRST AIRCRAFT COULD BE DELIVERED TO CANADA 
AS SOON AS NEXT SUMMER
2. THE NEW FLEET WILL BE FLOWN BY CF AIRCREW AND MAINTAINED AT FIRST 
LINE BY CF TECHNICIANS. AFTER ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE OPTIONS, IT 
HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT TRENTON WILL BE THE MOB FOR THE C-17
3. INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES TO 8 WING ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE NEW 
CAPABILITY. AS THIS WILL NOT BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION 
OF THE C-17 AIRCRAFT, INTERIM BASING REQUIREMENTS FOR BEDDOWN AND 
HOME STATION CHECKS ARE BEING REVIEWED
4. THE C-17 REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT NEW CAPABILITY FOR THE CF. 
TRAINING FOR INITIAL CREWS HAS ALREADY BEGUN, AND IT IS INTENDED TO 
FIELD THIS CAPABILITY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. TO THIS END, A 
WELL-COORDINATED EFFORT AT ALL LEVELS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE 
EXPEDITIOUS INTRODUCTION TO SERVICE
END OF ENGLISH TEXT/DEBUT DU TEXTE FRANCAIS


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I take it that means it's a done deal....we're getting (4) new C-17's?


Matthew.


----------



## Loachman

CAS certainly seems to think so.


----------



## aesop081

Call me crazy but i'll consider it a done deal when all 4 of them are parked on a CF airbase........


----------



## Loachman

Okay, you're crazy.

I'm told that training has already begun.

I appreciate your skepticism, as I come by my cynicism honestly too, and that is compounded by the unprecedented (during my "career") speed of acquisition, but it appears to be as done a deal as is possible.


----------



## GO!!!

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Call me crazy but i'll consider it a done deal when all 4 of them are parked on a CF airbase........



+1

 I'll believe it when I jump out of one.


----------



## geo

GO!!! said:
			
		

> +1
> 
> I'll believe it when I jump out of one.


Why would you want to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft?


----------



## GO!!!

geo said:
			
		

> Why would you want to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft?



1. It's fun

2. Takeoff and landing are the two most dangerous times in an aircraft - by leaving the plane in midair reduces that risk by 50%!!  ;D


----------



## geo

just imagine the Pilot's feelings you're going to hurt!


----------



## Yrys

Well, at least the pilot will know that GO!! is not
a terrorist, as he will be jumping out of the plane, 
instead of jumping on him...


----------



## GO!!!

geo said:
			
		

> just imagine the Pilot's feelings you're going to hurt!



I find they are more offended by the fact that our wings look waaaaay better than theirs than any criticism of their flying skills.


----------



## Zoomie

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I find they are more offended by the fact that our wings look waaaaay better than theirs...



LOL - that is a good one.  There is only one set of Wings in the CF - I wear them...


----------



## Crimmsy

Really? I've seen jump wings about, and Nav wings, and AESOp wings, and FE wings, and SARTech wings, and maybe others, but that's about all I can think of at the moment...

whether the jump wings look better than any others, well, methinks that's out of my lane..  :blotto:


----------



## GO!!!

Zoomie said:
			
		

> LOL - that is a good one.  There is only one set of Wings in the CF - I wear them...



<sigh> How do you know when a pilot walks into a room?

Don't worry, he'll tell you.


----------



## Zoomie

;D


----------



## Yrys

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I find they are more offended by the fact that our wings look waaaaay better than theirs than any criticism of their flying skills.




Well, the wings of an airplane won't move, but
the cords of a 'parachute' can mixed themself.
Then going down will be more dangerous then
with a plane 



> just imagine the Pilot's feelings you're going to hurt!



Just imagine the search and rescue pilot face when he finds you crashed in
the middle of the forest...   ;D


----------



## GO!!!

Yrys said:
			
		

> Well, the wings of an airplane won't move, but
> the cords of a 'parachute' can mixed themself.
> Then going down will be more dangerous then
> with a plane


Yes, but as they say at CPC; "should your parachute malfunction, fear not, you have the remainder of your life to remedy the situation"



> Just imagine the search and rescue pilot face when he finds you crashed in
> the middle of the forest...   ;D


If his peer flying the herc had'nt dropped me there (in the wrong spot) in the first place, I would'nt need rescuing, and I suspect it will be a chilly day in hell before SAR techs start bringing pilots with them on missions outside the aircraft.


----------



## Spencer100

The British MoD has anounced today that they are going to buy a sixth C-17.  I guess that keeps the line open one more month.  

So we can have a shot of getting one or two more down the line.  >


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

With the fall in the $USD versus pound (and in our case $CAD), C-17's have dropped about 25% in cost terms in our respective currencies.

Matthew.


----------



## geo

.... allowing room for more billable cost overruns?


----------



## civmick

How much did we pay upfront though?  It *is* a good time to be paying, with the USD in the tank and not likely to climb soon.


----------



## GAP

DID Focus: The Global C-17 Sustainment Partnership
30-Sep-2007 19:47 
Article Link

The C-17 Globemaster III remains the backbone of US Air Mobility Command inter-theater transport efforts around the world, and its ability to operate from shorter and rougher runways has made it especially useful during the Global War on Terror. The USA may cap production at 191 planes (though the House has inserted 10 more in the Fy 2008 bill), but a fierce fight is underway to preserve the program and even think tanks are lobbying hard. Meanwhile, various upgrades (including LAIRCM defensive systems) continue – along with heavy usage that is accumulating fatigue hours far faster than originally planned.

Which brings us to the subject of maintenance. The rising cost of maintenance has made it a greater concern to the world's militaries, and new contract vehicles are reflecting that. Under the C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership, Boeing has total system support responsibility for the big transport aircraft, including materiel management and depot maintenance, for fleets around the world. The goal is total aircraft sustainment support under a single contract, with the goal of achieving improvements in logistics support and mission readiness while reducing operating and support costs. The initial contract had an estimated total value of $4.9 billion, which is likely to grow slightly just as Boeing's customer base has done via buys by Australia (4), Britain (4 lease-to-owner options + 2), Canada (4), and NATO (4). 

While the C-17 may have limited production time in its future, the C-17 Globemaster Sustainment Partnership is likely to continue for many years. This is DID's FOCUS Article covering that effort; it will be backfilled and updated as time goes on. The latest addition concerns about $300 million in contracts….
More on link


----------



## geo

They can talk about phasing out production all they want.  The way the aircraft is being used worldwide, the pace of "just in time" deliveries to soldiers fighting the fight, the C17s airframse in service will get worn out way before it's time and require replacement.

Given that there are no new designs on the horizon, my bet is that they will continue to build and upgrade airframes for years to come.


----------



## tomahawk6

Earlier I stated that the production line wont be closed. The USAF needs more airlift capability and I dont think Congress wants the line shut down. Congress wants a new air mobility study. 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/10/airforce_airliftstudy_10.19w/

Bill wants a study on airlift capabilities
By Erik Holmes - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Oct 19, 2007 15:56:33 EDT

Another year, another mobility study.

A bill introduced Friday in the House would require the Defense secretary to study alternatives for the size and make-up of the Air Force’s inter-theater airlift fleet and submit a report top Congress by February 2009.

The study would focus on the current and planned capabilities and costs of the C-5 and C-17 fleets, according to a press release issued by the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Ellen Tausche, D-Calif., and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del.

“It is about time that we hold the Pentagon’s feet to the fire on this issue and require that a decision be made on the future of our airlift capability that is actually tied to real cost assessments and military requirements,” Tauscher said in the release.

“Airlift is critical on so many fronts, and in order to continue carrying out successful missions both at home and abroad we need to plan for the future and decide how to maximize our assets.”

Tauscher represents the district that is home to Travis Air Force Base, Calif., a C-17 base, and Castle represents the district that hosts Dover Air Force Base, Del., home to C-5s.

The bill mirrors an amendment attached to the Senate defense authorization bill in September.

The Air Force has faced criticism in Congress for not clearly articulating its mobility needs.

The service completed a mobility capability study in 2005, but the results have not been made public.

The bills calling for another study come at a time when a debate is raging within the Air Force and Congress about the wisdom of pursuing an expensive C-5 re-engining program rather than purchase more C-17s.

The C-5 program’s costs have spiked to the point that the Air Force will have to inform Congress – under a provision of the Nunn-McCurdy Act – that the program is more than 15 percent over budget.

Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col. Barbara Carson said in September that the cost of the re-engining has grown to $146.7 million per aircraft, for a total program cost of $17.5 billion.


----------



## GAP

Interactive: C-5s vs. C-17s in Washington
30-Oct-2007 20:15 
Article Link

A Washington think-tank has gone so far as to call the planned cancellation of C-17 heavy transport aircraft production "The Dumbest Weapons Decision of the Decade". The US Air Force is loath to close the C-17 line, which would cost them about $1.5 billion, plus another $4+ billion to re-open it if their decision proves to be too hasty. Not to mention the larger $8+ billion economic effects and lost jobs. Still, the cost of its equipment means that funds are tight, and last-minute Congressional earmarks have been necessary to keep the C-17 line going. Concern has also been expressed that by shuttering the line, the USA is effectively handing the global strategic airlift market over to France and Russia; the Airbus A400M and Russia's super-giant AN-124 would be the only games in town from 2010-2025, or longer. 

Worse, there is almost no confidence in the Pentagon's 2005 Mobility Requirements Study, whose assumptions hadn't budged from a 2000 study – before 9/11 and the resulting global war saw airlift usage and flight hours skyrocket, before the Army's Future Combat Systems' failure to fit into C-130 transports as promised… before a lot of things happened.

The House has authorized $2.4 billion to buy 10 more C-17s in FY 2008, but the Senate's version of the defense authorization bill doesn't include anything. Reconciliation negotiations are in progress, and C-17 addition will happen (or not) in the FY 2008 wartime supplemental spending bill #2. That isn't expected to come to the floor until early 2008.
More on link


----------



## geo

I am always baffled when people throw the A400 into the same comparaison as the C17 & C5 - it doesn't make much sense to my way of thinking

The A400 & the C130 are in the same league.... (xcept that the A400 is still sitting on the ground while the C130 is up to series "J")


----------



## ringo

Canada should order a couple more C17's for 2009  with options on an additional pair,
even if it delays C130J or FWSAR programs.


----------



## geo

ringo said:
			
		

> Canada should order a couple more C17's for 2009  with options on an additional pair,
> even if it delays C130J or FWSAR programs.



I think we'll be OK with FOUR.  No point in being piggy about it, Our CC130s need replacing


----------



## Globesmasher

ringo said:
			
		

> Canada should order a couple more C17's for 2009  with options on an additional pair,
> even if it delays C130J or FWSAR programs.



We cannot afford to delay the J model project.
We needed this project about 2 years ago - we simply cannot take any more delays for the C130 replacement.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if Canada could "lease" 2 more C-17 till the C-130J came online? Return them to the USAF or to another approved Airforce. Hell set up a company to rent them to NATO and other parties.


----------



## Zoomie

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> We cannot afford to delay the J model project.
> We needed this project about 2 years ago - we simply cannot take any more delays for the C130 replacement.



Funny thing is - we can echo that same sentiment about the FWSAR and MP replacement projects.


----------



## Globesmasher

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Funny thing is - we can echo that same sentiment about the FWSAR and MP replacement projects.



Sadly that is all but too true.
Equally sad is the fact that we're looking at the Brazilian Buff for parts ......  :'(


----------



## geo

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Sadly that is all but too true.
> Equally sad is the fact that we're looking at the Brazilian Buff for parts ......  :'(



(and probably the Brazilians are in the same boat..... looking at ours for parts too)


----------



## GAP

DID Focus: The Global C-17 Sustainment Partnership
13-Jan-2009 18:40 EST
Article Link

The C-17 Globemaster III remains the backbone of US Air Mobility Command inter-theater transport efforts around the world, and its ability to operate from shorter and rougher runways has made it especially useful during the Global War on Terror. The USA may cap production at 191 planes (though the House has inserted 10 more in the FY 2008 bill), but a fierce fight is underway to preserve the program and even think tanks are lobbying hard. Meanwhile, various upgrades (including LAIRCM defensive systems) continue – along with heavy usage that is accumulating fatigue hours far faster than originally planned.

Which brings us to the subject of maintenance. The rising cost of maintenance has made it a greater concern to the world’s militaries, and new contract vehicles are reflecting that. Under the C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership, Boeing has total system support responsibility for the big transport aircraft, including materiel management and depot maintenance, for fleets around the world. The goal is total aircraft sustainment support under a single contract, with the goal of achieving improvements in logistics support and mission readiness while reducing operating and support costs. The initial contract had an estimated total value of $4.9 billion, which is likely to grow slightly just as Boeing’s customer base has done via deliveries to Australia (4), Britain (6), Canada (4), Qatar (2), and a likely NATO buy (3). 

While the C-17 may have limited production time in its future, the C-17 Globemaster Sustainment Partnership is likely to continue for many years. This is DID’s in-depth, updated FOCUS Article covering this major international program, offering key statistics for the aircraft, explaining the GSP’s components and detailing its contracts. 

The latest addition involves a maintenance contract that is worth more than $1 billion…

The C-17 Globemaster III 
The C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership 
The C-17 PE/PI Program 
Contracts and Key Events, FY 2004-Present [updated] 
Additional Readings & Sources 
Lots More on link


----------



## mover1

We need one more for sure. 
And a simulator.


----------



## Spr.Earl

See the news to day?
Boing has a new contract for new planes for the USAF.

C17 can not compare to the C5.

C17 is a waste of air frame in my own opinion,the C5 Galaxy could have been improved and still be lifting more and flying further than the C17 with the tech. to day.


----------



## geo

Replacement with newer, smaller C-17s is amongthe solutions for aging, increasingly broken C-5s

http://www.ngaus.org/NGAUS/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000003574/strategicdebate0208.pdf


In interesting article about the two bird.


----------



## Astrodog

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> See the news to day?
> Bo*e*ing has a new contract for new planes for the USAF.
> 
> C17 can not compare to the C5.
> 
> C17 is a waste of air frame in my own opinion,the C5 Galaxy could have been improved and still be lifting more and flying further than the C17 with the tech. to day.


Can a C-5 fly 500ft AGL 300kts while snapping into 60/2 turns and air drop beans and bullets to the guys on the ground? Can a C-5 do an assault landing onto a 5,000ft austere airstrip? C-17 can, sounds like a half decent 500,000lbs MTOW airframe to me.

 You are comparing apples and oranges. Also, C-5 _has_ been improved; google 'C-5M'.


----------



## mover1

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> C17 can not compare to the C5.
> 
> C17 is a waste of air frame in my own opinion,the C5 Galaxy could have been improved and still be lifting more and flying further than the C17 with the tech. to day.



I would disagree. The C-17 capabilities far out weigh that of the C-5. Plus the limits of where a C-5 can go. 
Besides the ones we bought have all the latest bells and whistles. So much so that some Amerian units look at our planes with envy. 

There is so much that the airframe can do it would amaze you.


----------



## George Wallace

I'm impressed by both aircraft, but I agree, this is an apples and oranges argument.


----------



## Globesmasher

*US Air Force orders 15 Boeing C-17s.*

Sat Feb 7, 11:15 am ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Air Force has ordered 15 C-17 military transport planes from US manufacturer Boeing valued at 2.9 billion dollars, the Pentagon announced.

"The Air Force is awarding a firm fixed price contract to (Boeing subsidiary) McDonnell Douglas Corporation of Long Beach, California for an amount not to exceed 2.95 billion dollars ... for the procurement of 15 C-17 aircraft," the Department of Defense said in a statement.

The statement had no information on the date of the delivery of the aircraft.

The contract revives the fortunes of the aircraft, known as the Globemaster III, a plane at the heart of the US Air Force's fleet of long-range transport planes. The C-17 can fly long distances and land on short landing strips.

Boeing had been on the verge of scrapping C-17 production in 2006 when orders for the plane dried up.

The move revives work at the Boeing plant in Long Beach which would otherwise have closed down by mid-year, directly affecting some 5,500 Boeing workers.

The US Air Force has ordered up to now 190 C-17s. Boeing has also sold six of the airplanes to Britain, four to Canada and four to Australia.


----------



## Good2Golf

Hmmm...if I were Boeing, I wouldn't lock the gate just yet...you never know how long it will take before the A400M finally sewers and folks come looking...


----------



## tomahawk6

A 3 year delay in the A400M I am sure there will be other orders perhaps from the UK and Germany.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Boeing's efforts to keep the line going:

Boeing Turns to Cost Reduction on C-17 Sales
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/C17-021309.xml&headline=Boeing%20Turns%20to%20Cost%20Reduction%20on%20C-17%20Sales



> Boeing officials have shifted their strategy on future C-17 sales from reducing the annual production rate and toward cutting per-unit cost instead, according to industry officials.
> 
> The new focus is possible because of *new opportunities in the international market including, possibly, interest from countries disappointed in consistent delays by the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS) in delivering its A400M airlifter* emphasis added--see link below].
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/77597/post-812143.html#msg812143
> 
> Last year, Boeing Military Aircraft President Chris Chadwick directed a review from his staff of the effect on the cost of the C-17 Globemaster III airlifter if annual production was lowered from its 12-15 unit pace. Underpinning the review was concern that the production rate would be reachable without more purchases from the U.S. Air Force - which has declined to formally fund the program in recent annual budget requests - or new interest from the international market.
> 
> Congress has repeatedly earmarked spending for more C-17s over Bush administration objections.
> 
> International interest, meantime, has grown while earmarked funding came through for 15 new USAF C-17s via 2008 war-related supplemental spending. Hoping for as much, Boeing has been carrying the cost of building new Globemasters on its own funding.
> 
> The total U.S. Air Force order now includes 205 aircraft. Additionally, the United Kingdom has ordered six, Australia and Canada have each bought four and NATO has signed on for three. Boeing declines to confirm the size of Qatar’s order, though it is thought to be for two C-17s with an option for two more.
> 
> One official close to the C-17 program says *several options for future sales to the U.S. Air Force are under review at Boeing, including as many as 60 additional airlifters. This will depend heavily on the outcome of a sweeping mobility requirements study now under way at the Pentagon* [emphasis added]. Company officials have long held that 92,000-troop increase coming to U.S. ground forces will drive the need for even more airlift than planned just a few years ago...
> 
> Cost reductions are possible in overhead, design, structures and parts suppliers, he adds. Though the company has an internal savings target, Mills declined to disclose it citing concerns about competition.
> 
> International pricing is about $220 million per aircraft, with the United States paying just over $200 million each.
> 
> Discussions are occurring with the United Arab Emirates and additional sales are possible to the United Kingdom and Australia, according to the official close to the program. Meetings are also planned with France, Libya and India. France could be a key customer, as it is struggling to maintain support for EADS’ A400M among allies.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Replacing Worn Out C-17s
February 12, 2009: The U.S. Air Force has ordered another fifteen C-17 transports, paying $194 million for each of them. This purchase was prompted by the fact that the current C-17 fleet is being worked to death. The problem is that the C-17 is more in demand during the war on terror than are air force combat aircraft. Only the two dozen AC-130 gunships, and a hundred or so A-10 ground attack aircraft and F-16 fighter-bombers are getting steady work these days. But their workload is nothing compared to the C-17s, which are in constant demand to deliver personnel and material to American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places where the war on terror is being fought. 
The C-17 entered service 14 years ago, and those first few aircraft quickly compiled 3,000 flight hours supporting peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. Each C-17 has a useful life of 30,000 flight hours, but the current force is flying such long, and hard (landing on rough fields) flights that many of the early model C-17s will be worn out within 5-10 years. This attrition is accelerated by the fact that the early model C-17s are structurally different, and weaker, than the later model C-17s. The wing box in the center of the fuselage, on early models,  was insufficiently strong for the loads placed on it. This was corrected later in the production run, but those early planes are going to wear out faster than later model planes of the same flight hours. Adding to this problem is the fact that many C-17s are landing on rough fields with heavy loads and are taking life time shortening structural damage. We have flown a lot of C-17s into northern Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a bunch of other stans with rough/short strips in 2001 and 2003. The C-17 was built for this sort of thing, but lots of these landing come at the price of shorter useful life.

It's always been an uphill fight getting new air transports built. There were so many delays in the C-17 program that, when the 1991 Gulf War came along, the C-17 was not available and the C-141 transports, that was supposed to keep flying until 2010, were basically worn out by heavy use, and had to be retired early. Now the C-17s are doing more work, to make up for the missing C-141s. Originally, there were to be 120 C-17s (at $135 million each), with production ending in 2004. After September 11, 2001, it was realized that more air transports would be needed, and the production run of the C-17 was increased to 180. It was then proposed to increase it again to 222 aircraft. But logistics planners insist that 300 will be needed, if wartime needs are to be met. Moreover, the rapid deterioration of the early model C-17s means that eventually 350, or more, will have to be built to maintain a fleet of 300 transports. So far, 190 have been ordered, including 14 sold to foreign customers.

The major problem is that the air force is run by combat pilots. Although they recognize the importance of the C-17, they tend to focus on getting warplanes built. Additional C-17 construction comes at the expense of building new combat aircraft, and that's a hard sell inside the air force. Usually, it lobbying by the army, and other branches of the government, that compels Congress to strong arm the air force generals to build the needed C-17s. It's an ugly, messy and time consuming way to get aircraft built, but it works.

via
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/articles/20090212.aspx


----------



## Good2Golf

U.A.E. just bought four C-17's this week at IDEX '09.


----------



## Globesmasher

..... as well as on-going negotiations with Qatar.  Not sure but I believe they have signed an memo of understanding and/or intention.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seems like the Production line of C-17's is going to be a shiny spot for Boeing for quite some time. Wonder if they will do a Stretched version?


----------



## mover1

Give your head a shake and ask why the F@#$ would they make a stretched version?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Okay I gave my head a shake and still wonder if a stretched version is possible and saleable?


----------



## mover1

I don't think it would be. They are expensive and what would you gain by stretching it. All you are adding is more weight to an aircraft and decreasing its payload. Just for a few extra inches of space that no one would really use.
The ER range C-17s are a perfect example of that.


----------



## geo

If you want so0mething with a greater capacity than the C17, then an Antonov or a C5 Galaxy are the practical alternatives.


----------



## TimBit

geo said:
			
		

> If you want so0mething with a greater capacity than the C17, then an Antonov or a C5 Galaxy are the practical alternatives.



As much as I respect the Antonov's capacity, buying Russian planes is not a sound move, strategically thinking. Relationships are not exactly waxing at the moment.

As for C5s, they can't go tactical like C17s...


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> If you want so0mething with a greater capacity than the C17, then an Antonov or a C5 Galaxy are the practical alternatives.



Thats like using a watermelon to do the job of an orange.

:


----------



## George Wallace

TimBit said:
			
		

> As much as I respect the Antonov's capacity, buying Russian planes is not a sound move, strategically thinking. Relationships are not exactly waxing at the moment.
> 
> As for C5s, they can't go tactical like C17s...



Not all our Lift has to be able to go tactical.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My understanding is that there is no production of the C5 and the fleet is getting old, I seem to recall a wing upgrade a few years ago.


----------



## aesop081

Colin P said:
			
		

> I seem to recall a wing upgrade a few years ago.



And the current upgrade to C-5M that is starting to be delivered.


----------



## geo

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Thats like using a watermelon to do the job of an orange.


Not arguing that - there is a job for the C17s and there is a job for the C5s.
And, if you need something as big as C5 to deliver your goods... it isn,t tactical & it's probably more like a watermelon


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> And the current upgrade to C-5M that is starting to be delivered.



Thanks I did not know about that upgrade, so all of the B &C models will get the full upgrade and the A models the avionc package only. That gives them approx 126 aircraft.


----------



## CougarKing

I don't think this update has been posted here before:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,190875,00.html



> Senators Push Panel For 15 More C-17s
> Aviation Week's DTI | John M. Doyle | May 13, 2009
> This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
> 
> Nineteen U.S. senators are urging the Senate Appropriations Committee to include money for more C-17 cargo lifters when it considers the emergency wartime supplemental spending bill for fiscal 2009.
> 
> The 30-member committee is slated to take up the $85.3 billion measure to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the swine flu outbreak on May 14.
> 
> A letter, written by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-Mo.), calls on Senate appropriators to include enough money to procure an additional 15 C-17s. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he wants to halt C-17 acquisitions at 205 aircraft, either in production or currently flying. Gates also included money for an orderly shutdown of the C-17 line in the fiscal 2010 defense budget request.
> 
> The C-17 is assembled at a Boeing plant in Long Beach, Calif., in Boxer’s home state. Bond, a member of the appropriations panel, represents another state with a large Boeing presence.
> 
> Boeing advocates in Congress, who have managed to stave off previous attempts to halt production, note that plants in 43 states employing 30,000 people have a part in C-17 production.
> 
> Last week the House Appropriations Committee included $3.1 billion for eight C-17s and 11 C-130 cargo aircraft in its $94.3 billion version of the supplemental war spending bill.
> 
> In their letter, the senators note that there will be greater need for cargo and transport as the military increases operations in Afghanistan, the Army and Marine Corps increase their end strength and the new Germany-based Africa Command increases its activities.
> 
> Photo: Boeing


----------

