• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Boeing to shut down C-17 production

GO!!!

Fallen Comrade
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
0
Points
410
geo said:
Why would you want to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft?
:D

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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
just imagine the Pilot's feelings you're going to hurt!
 

Yrys

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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!!!

Fallen Comrade
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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. :D
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
177
Points
680
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

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
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!!!

Fallen Comrade
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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.
 

Yrys

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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. :D


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!!!

Fallen Comrade
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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.  :D




 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
650
Points
1,040
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.  >:D
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
36
Points
530
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.  :salute:
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
.... allowing room for more billable cost overruns?
 

civmick

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
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

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
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

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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")
 
Top