• 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

ringo

Member
Reaction score
4
Points
180
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,804
Points
1,160
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

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
177
Points
680
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

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
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
 

Spr.Earl

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Spr.Earl said:
See the news to day?
Boeing 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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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.
 

Globesmasher

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,289
Points
1,360
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
A 3 year delay in the A400M I am sure there will be other orders perhaps from the UK and Germany.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,804
Points
1,160
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,289
Points
1,360
U.A.E. just bought four C-17's this week at IDEX '09.
 
Top