Canada's strategic airlift capability megathread (CC177, CC130J, A400M?)

[KevinB]

What about additional conversions though?

I believe that is what they mean.

Airbus has been adamant that everyone jump on the NEO bus or…

 

[Good2Golf]

Airbus has been adamant that everyone jump on the NEO bus or…

…buy an as-yet undeveloped multi-role tanker-freighter-passenger hauling KC-46…

 

[dapaterson]

…buy an as-yet undeveloped multi-role tanker-freighter-passenger hauling KC-46…

I'm sure that the MBAs at McDonnell-Douglas Boeing will, at some time, look up from their P&L spreadsheets and start thinking about aircraft design.

 

[Kirkhill]

Inside the C-130 Hercules, a military transport aircraft that can land almost anywhere and haul almost anything

The C-130 Hercules airlifter's versatility, longevity, and cargo capacity have made it a valuable asset to the Air Force and over 40 countries.

www.businessinsider.com

70 years in production.

Almost as long as the Chinook - 64 years in production.

Sometimes the universe just finds the sweetspot.

The 4 wheeled wagon has been around for 5500 years.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A400 seems to be getting more customers and forming a NATO "Pool" of aircraft

 

[ytz]

NATO moving to C-17/A400M combo.

I keep saying we should do the same.

 

[PuckChaser]

Literally anything would be good. Despite elbows up, if they open the C17 line back up we immediately need to round out a full Sqn of them. A400s would be a nice European olive branch as we run the J models out of hours as much as I'd be sad to see the Hercs go.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I have read that the USAF has had such serious parts issues with the C17 that the Air Force itself has resorted to 3D printing their own parts. Also, it seems the last preferred option for a C17 restart was for an aircraft with somewhat different fuselage dimensions (narrower by a meter, taller and some changes to door and ramp configurations). To wit, the next iteration of C17 could be identical to current or it could be modified enough to think twice.

 

[calculus]

I have read that the USAF has had such serious parts issues with the C17 that the Air Force itself has resorted to 3D printing their own parts. Also, it seems the last preferred option for a C17 restart was for an aircraft with somewhat different fuselage dimensions (narrower by a meter, taller and some changes to door and ramp configurations). To wit, the next iteration of C17 could be identical to current or it could be modified enough to think twice.

Correct. The C17 FE was narrower by about a meter, in an effort to gain some aerodynamic efficiency. The one that would hopefully get built if they reopen the line is the original "A" model, or the proposed "B'' model.

Three Types Of C-17 That Never Made It Off The Drawing Board

The C-17 was a successful design. Here are 3 modifications to the C-17 that never made it off the drawing board.

avgeekery.com

 

[ytz]

I would think the cheapest restart is the A model. And for the US, they just need a bridge to their future airlift programs.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

De Havilland resurrects the "Short Skyvan" . I used to see these doing the hop from YVR to Pat Bay, always thought they were a useful aircraft.

 

[YZT580]

De Havilland resurrects the "Short Skyvan" . I used to see these doing the hop from YVR to Pat Bay, always thought they were a useful aircraft.

Perhaps a cheaper A/C to resurrect than the DHC5 but would be very useful to service our north country if you could extend the range a bit and it is already Civilian certified

 

[KevinB]

I would think the cheapest restart is the A model. And for the US, they just need a bridge to their future airlift programs.

The questions put to Boeing by Congress, included if they had the tooling to restart the C-17A, and if not what the financial implications were of A-C modifications.

Baring any revolutionary designs, I don’t see Future Airlift taking off.

Trying to replace the C-5M and C-17A with one airframe is a pretty big swing - as having 100% of your Strat Airlift having Rough Field and Parachutist deployment seems to be a huge cost driver

 

[Furniture]

Baring any revolutionary designs, I don’t see Future Airlift taking off.

Like the M-4 replacement plans, it will be a case of the new "thing" not being better enough to justify the cost of switching.

If Boeing was smart they'd find a way to make C-17s again, and make sure that the order books were full. The demand for rough field capable strategic airlift isn't gone, and it likely to grow in the future.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Like the M-4 replacement plans, it will be a case of the new "thing" not being better enough to justify the cost of switching.

If Boeing was smart they'd find a way to make C-17s again, and make sure that the order books were full. The demand for rough field capable strategic airlift isn't gone, and it likely to grow in the future.

But that approach lacks a serious amount of buzzwords like : "Transformative" "Innovation" etc, etc

 

[dapaterson]

If Boeing was smart they'd never have been taken over by McDonnell Douglas.

 

[Furniture]

But that approach lacks a serious amount of buzzwords like : "Transformative" "Innovation" etc, etc

I kind of get the idea of a "future strategic airlift" platform. We have all lived through/grown-up in a world where revolutions in design are the norm, not the exception. That seems to be ending as aircraft hit their practical limitations, and realistically, hit them 20 years ago.

I think for Boeing it's hard to accept that as a company that built it's name on innovation, they aren't going to "innovate" their way out of their current hole. They need to be more like Toyota, and get (back to being) good at hammering out lots of reliable and boring products.

 

[OldSolduer]

I kind of get the idea of a "future strategic airlift" platform. We have all lived through/grown-up in a world where revolutions in design are the norm, not the exception. That seems to be ending as aircraft hit their practical limitations, and realistically, hit them 20 years ago.

I think for Boeing it's hard to accept that as a company that built it's name on innovation, they aren't going to "innovate" their way out of their current hole. They need to be more like Toyota, and get (back to being) good at hammering out lots of reliable and boring products.

The Boeing Corolla

 

[Furniture]

The Boeing Corolla

At one time that was the 737, until they turned it into the Pinto.

 

[OldSolduer]

At one time that was the 737, until they turned it into the Pinto.

Or the Boeing Maverick