Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/102915/

Topic: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-02-07 04:58:57 and read 7369 times.

This saves the line--for now. I wouldn't be surprised to see more orders next year--hopefully a multi-year buy.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...ALeqM5iqcH3O_7bxVvQTotLh3PtE4dpN7g

Quote:
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.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Stitch
Posted 2009-02-07 07:57:14 and read 7311 times.

Let's get ten more, USAF, for a nice even 200. And one more each for the RCAF and RAAF, as well, to make it an even five.  Wink

And hopefully the RAF will add four more and the Luftwaffe will add, say, ten to help tide them over while they wait for the A400M to arrive.

That would make 220, so we just need NATO to do a group buy of five more for a nice 225.  thumbsup 

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: GDB
Posted 2009-02-07 08:23:41 and read 7291 times.

Good news, will help perhaps the RAF get the two more they desire, (though with a 'crunch' predicted of C-130 availability predicted around 2012, maybe as Sitch says, some more might be brought).

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: TexL1649
Posted 2009-02-07 08:45:36 and read 7281 times.

This will keep the line open through the next A400M delay/schedule announcement. If they're not going to be in service through 2013, there could be a bundle of Globemaster orders.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Galaxy5007
Posted 2009-02-07 09:08:06 and read 7267 times.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Let's get ten more, USAF, for a nice even 200. And one more each for the RCAF and RAAF, as well, to make it an even five.

The total before this was 190, which 3 of such have already been delivered to Charleston. This was already approved long ago, but just now funded. Not really new news. This brings the fleet to 205.

Another 30 jets would suffice the AF requirement, unless they retire the C-5As. Then its either a crapload more C-17s, or something to replace the C-5A. In reality, a new aircraft (with high wing design) will be needed to replace the C-5. I think after the OT&E results come back, things might get re-evaluated.

Nato also is aquiring 2 aircraft, possibly a third, first one being delivered in Spring 09.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: STT757
Posted 2009-02-07 09:21:00 and read 7256 times.



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 4):

Another 30 jets would suffice the AF requirement, unless they retire the C-5As. Then its either a crapload more C-17s, or something to replace the C-5A.

Absolutely, 225-235 is the ideal C-17 fleet. If they start parking C-5As then the requirements for C-17s would be more like 255-275.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Stitch
Posted 2009-02-07 09:58:46 and read 7227 times.



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 4):
Another 30 jets would suffice the AF requirement, unless they retire the C-5As.

I'm surprised the USAF is not putting the new engines on the C-5A's getting the C-5M's avionics upgrade. With their new wings, I can't think that would be an issue...

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-02-07 11:22:52 and read 7181 times.

Does the C5 have to be replaced, the design that is not the actual a/c, how much more technological advancements have taken place since the original design, avionics yes, and some composite could be included in construction, but the basic design of the a/c and its features should still be viable, why not simply build a new and improved C5?

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Galaxy5007
Posted 2009-02-07 11:37:08 and read 7171 times.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
I'm surprised the USAF is not putting the new engines on the C-5A's getting the C-5M's avionics upgrade. With their new wings, I can't think that would be an issue...

There are some structural issues that are involved that are time and money consuming repairs. They involve critical beams in the fuselage, and the skin. The A models were built with a different aluminum than the B models. The wings were replaced, yes, but the rest of the plane still has the old aluminum, and its showing its age now. Lots of corrosion issues and cracks popping up. To be quite honest with you, the A models don't necessarily need the new engines, but some of the other RERP upgrades would be nice. Keep in mind that RERP doesn't fix and address everything. There still going to have hydraulic problems, nitro problems, and of course the bugs you have with software with AMP.

The first A model production AMP bird is already a month overdue its original projected output date because of some issues. It'll be interesting to see if those get fixed, or if it was just related to that particular aircraft (8214).

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
Absolutely, 225-235 is the ideal C-17 fleet. If they start parking C-5As then the requirements for C-17s would be more like 255-275.

I agree. I think they should retire some of the A models, and invest in some more of the C-17s, or have boeing design a C-17D with the strategic airlift mission in mind, instead of the strategic/tatical combined mission they keep throwing around now.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: JohnM
Posted 2009-02-07 15:34:41 and read 7053 times.

The problem with 15 additional airplanes is who is going to maintain them? There isn't money out there for more people and parts. My understanding is that current C-17 bases were asked if they wanted any of the 15 "freebie" 17's. No extra people or funding is included. NO. These guys are busy enough with what they have now. Ops will just want to fly more if there are more jets, be dammed if maint is maxed out or not. Something has to go to free up $ and people to take care of more planes. There just isn't some building somewhere with a bunch of -17 maintainers hanging around waiting to fix more airplanes. The C-5 units have already been stripped to fill the C-17 maintenance units, next step is put more C-5s in the desert.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Poadrim
Posted 2009-02-07 15:59:39 and read 7032 times.

A quick question, could you use the C-17 as a civilian plane? With pax windows?

//Poadrim

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-02-07 16:30:05 and read 7014 times.



Quoting Poadrim (Reply 10):
A quick question, could you use the C-17 as a civilian plane? With pax windows?

Boeing has the BC-17(F) for sale for years now. No one has ordered any of them.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Poadrim
Posted 2009-02-07 17:10:52 and read 6984 times.

Humm, seems like I can't find any pictures of it...

//Poadrim

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Stitch
Posted 2009-02-07 17:46:23 and read 6962 times.



Quoting Poadrim (Reply 12):
Humm, seems like I can't find any pictures of it...

Link to Image

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Nomadd22
Posted 2009-02-07 17:55:30 and read 6955 times.



Quoting Poadrim (Reply 10):
A quick question, could you use the C-17 as a civilian plane? With pax windows?

Not for passengers. Boeing figured back in 01 that they could certify a civilian cargo model for around $300 million. Something you could fly a 70 ton payload to a 4,000 foot strip with. Oil and mining companies expressed interest, but it never got off the ground.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: STT757
Posted 2009-02-07 18:46:42 and read 6926 times.



Quoting JohnM (Reply 9):
My understanding is that current C-17 bases were asked if they wanted any of the 15 "freebie" 17's. No extra people or funding is included. NO. These guys are busy enough with what they have now.

McGuire wants a second C-17 squadron, the 13 C-17s they are operating replaced some 30 C-141s. The 305th AW is more than happy to accept a second squadron, and there's plenty of ramp space even with the Willow Grove Units coming over.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Galaxy5007
Posted 2009-02-07 22:26:30 and read 6823 times.



Quoting STT757 (Reply 15):
Quoting JohnM (Reply 9):
My understanding is that current C-17 bases were asked if they wanted any of the 15 "freebie" 17's. No extra people or funding is included. NO. These guys are busy enough with what they have now.

McGuire wants a second C-17 squadron, the 13 C-17s they are operating replaced some 30 C-141s. The 305th AW is more than happy to accept a second squadron, and there's plenty of ramp space even with the Willow Grove Units coming over.

McGuire wants a second C-17 squadron, and so did March. March is getting them now from Charleston...they just got the first one (97-0043) and named it the "Spirit of Los Angeles". Stewart ANGB wants to give up the C-5s and trade in for a squadron of 13 C-17s. Martinsburg and Memphis were willing to take a couple more C-5s, but not all of them from Stewart. If Stewart gets C-17s, some A models are going in the boneyard for sure.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 7):
Does the C5 have to be replaced, the design that is not the actual a/c, how much more technological advancements have taken place since the original design, avionics yes, and some composite could be included in construction, but the basic design of the a/c and its features should still be viable, why not simply build a new and improved C5?

The tooling for the C-5 was destroyed not too long after the B-models were completed. It is cheaper to fix the A models than replacing it with a new plane, but congressmen are against spending the money to do so. The problem with AMP and RERP is that it doesn't fix all the problems the plane has. Unless they strip them out and re-do things, the current C-5M will have legacy problems hurting the performance it should have. Even if they did fix them, there is no money to do it anymore. Not when we are bailing out useless banks, and giving them resort vacations and 20 million dollar bonuses.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Fridgmus
Posted 2009-02-08 23:42:49 and read 6477 times.



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 16):
The tooling for the C-5 was destroyed not too long after the B-models were completed.

Why was the tooling destroyed, not only for the C-5 but for other aircraft as well?

Wouldn't it make sense to hold on to some tooling?

Thanks,

F

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Gsosbee
Posted 2009-02-09 07:11:51 and read 6362 times.

DID has an excellent review of the C-5/C-17 debate today:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...c-5s-vs-c-17s-in-washington-04109/

Be sure to download the Excel worksheet.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: TropicBird
Posted 2009-02-09 12:59:38 and read 6232 times.



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 18):
DID has an excellent review of the C-5/C-17 debate today:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...c-5s-vs-c-17s-in-washington-04109/

Be sure to download the Excel worksheet.

Can only read a small portion of the article because of the need for a subscription. Even the Excel file won't open. Can you paraphrase the update for us?

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Scouseflyer
Posted 2009-02-09 15:00:14 and read 6158 times.



Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 17):
Why was the tooling destroyed, not only for the C-5 but for other aircraft as well?

Wouldn't it make sense to hold on to some tooling?

It seems to be the way when an aircraft is retired - if I remember correctly the B2 tooling has also gone - I think it's to stop it falling into the wrong hands

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Zkpilot
Posted 2009-02-09 17:36:20 and read 6079 times.



Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 20):
It seems to be the way when an aircraft is retired - if I remember correctly the B2 tooling has also gone - I think it's to stop it falling into the wrong hands

Surely it can't be that hard to pack it all up into a warehouse on a base somewhere under lock and key for a decade? Seems a waste to just destroy it straight away!

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Osiris30
Posted 2009-02-09 17:54:17 and read 6064 times.



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 19):
Can only read a small portion of the article because of the need for a subscription. Even the Excel file won't open. Can you paraphrase the update for us?

I was able to get the worksheet the other day. Long story made short, the cost to acquire C17s was cheaper over the lifetime of the airframes (by 17-30% if memory serves, I know the 17% number for sure, high-end may have been higher) than upgrades to the C5.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-02-09 17:55:07 and read 6064 times.



Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 20):
It seems to be the way when an aircraft is retired - if I remember correctly the B2 tooling has also gone

Actually, some tooling is stored for many decades. The FB-111 tooling is still in storage at DM, to support the RAAF F-111C/G. Northrup is still storing the B-2 tooling. Every few years they propose a B-2B to the USAF. But, the C-5A/B tooling has all been scrapped.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Osiris30
Posted 2009-02-09 17:58:10 and read 6060 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Every few years they propose a B-2B to the USAF.

As an aside, I think that would be a good idea. Especially with the few operational losses the fleet has seen. Another 12-15 frames would not be a bad idea at all IMHO. Hell the dev costs are sunk now. (If anyone wants to discuss this via PM instead so as not to hijack the thread go right ahead).

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-02-13 18:48:53 and read 5694 times.

Actually, only one B-2A has been lost in a crash. There is another B-2A that suffered some type of structual failure and will never fly again. That airplane has been at the Musem of the USAF for years. But, AFAIK, those are the only two that are written off.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: ZANL188
Posted 2009-02-13 20:28:09 and read 5903 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
There is another B-2A that suffered some type of structual failure and will never fly again. That airplane has been at the Musem of the USAF for years. But, AFAIK, those are the only two that are written off.

The B-2 at the Museum was a structural test airplane. The structural failure occurred during testing to ultimate load. I wouldn't count that as a writeoff - rather a test article.

Northrop Grumman constructed two additional aircraft without engines or instruments for fatigue testing. On the second of those test aircraft (the B-2 on display at the museum), engineers attached computer-controlled, hydraulically driven plates along the airframe to simulate all flying conditions. They calculated that the structure would reach 150 percent of the design specifications, but the wing withstood stresses over 161 percent before it finally cracked.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=422

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-02-14 04:21:47 and read 5806 times.

New cost data on the C-17 here:

Quote:
International pricing is about $220 million per aircraft, with the United States paying just over $200 million each.

Another 60 for USAF?

Quote:
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. 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.

Chadwick’s focus for the C-17s future has changed recently. He is now exploring cost reductions for the program, according to Boeing spokesman Damien Mills. “The market is different than it was even a few months back” he says. “There is reasonable market demand to hold to the current rate.”

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-02-14 16:45:05 and read 5626 times.



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 27):
Another 60 for USAF?

I thought the RAF is also considering buying 4 more C-17s, bringing their total to 10. Is there any chance of selling C-17s to other EU countries, in addition to those already announced by the UK, NATO, and Norway? What about Israel or Japan?

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Stitch
Posted 2009-02-14 19:30:09 and read 5616 times.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
Is there any chance of selling C-17s to other EU countries, in addition to those already announced by the UK, NATO, and Norway?

Germany (and now France?) may find themselves, not "forced" per se, but "strongly compelled" to take some due to both the delays and expected performance shortfalls of the first tranche of A400Ms.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: DEVILFISH
Posted 2009-02-14 20:39:20 and read 5581 times.

Perhaps Boeing might be inclined to forego its KC-X interests if it got equivalent C-17 orders from France, Germany and Spain?  Smile

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Lumberton
Posted 2009-02-15 04:11:14 and read 5469 times.



Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 30):
Perhaps Boeing might be inclined to forego its KC-X interests if it got equivalent C-17 orders from France, Germany and Spain? Smile

Been brought up a couple of times. Could make sense if it were done on an equal costs basis (probably unrealistic for it to be done on a plane-for-plane basis) but for that to happen the A400 program would probably go bye-bye. I don't think the member governments would let that happen, but then again, I never thought the USAF would select the KC-30, or that the A400 program would be encountering such difficulty.

There is a mobility study going on right now within DOD. Although I don't expect anything earth shattering to come out of it, its clear that the USAF isn't going to buy everything it wants. That probably includes 170+ KC-X.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: LMP737
Posted 2009-02-18 21:11:45 and read 5085 times.



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 16):
The tooling for the C-5 was destroyed not too long after the B-models were completed. It is cheaper to fix the A models than replacing it with a new plane, but congressmen are against spending the money to do so.

Even though the tooling was cut up nothing prevents it from being produced again. With tooling in the scrap heap it just means it would cost more money to revive an aircraft type. And no I don't think the USAF will ever order new C-5's again.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Nomadd22
Posted 2009-02-19 04:23:26 and read 4989 times.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 32):
Even though the tooling was cut up nothing prevents it from being produced again. With tooling in the scrap heap it just means it would cost more money to revive an aircraft type. And no I don't think the USAF will ever order new C-5's again.

Nothing but the tooling being gone, the facilities being gone, the engineers and machinists that made up the program being gone to other jobs or retired, hundreds of suppliers having ceased production and having lost or moved all their people who knew the program, the engines no longer being in production, a thousand design changes need to use available components and technology and about a hundred other reasons.
It wouldn't be much easier than starting up production for an entirely new plane.

[Edited 2009-02-19 04:29:40]

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: LMP737
Posted 2009-02-19 11:27:01 and read 4849 times.



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 33):
Nothing but the tooling being gone, the facilities being gone, the engineers and machinists that made up the program being gone to other jobs or retired, hundreds of suppliers having ceased production and having lost or moved all their people who knew the program, the engines no longer being in production, a thousand design changes need to use available components and technology and about a hundred other reasons.
It wouldn't be much easier than starting up production for an entirely new plane.

Those reasons as well. While cheaper than a new aircraft it would still be very expensive to bring back something like the C-5 production line.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: JakeOrion
Posted 2009-02-19 15:43:04 and read 4746 times.



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 34):
Those reasons as well. While cheaper than a new aircraft it would still be very expensive to bring back something like the C-5 production line.

Actually, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm currently involved in the SLEP program for the C-2 Greyhound, and the Navy has been talking about retooling the old Grumman factory to make new aircraft to eventually replace these already old airframes. However, the costs to do so have are nearly identical than just developing a brand new COD replacement, only this time maybe turbo jet/fan.

Also have been talks about using the V-22 as a replacement as well.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-02-19 16:14:00 and read 4741 times.



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 35):
However, the costs to do so have are nearly identical than just developing a brand new COD replacement, only this time maybe turbo jet/fan.

On paper they can initially say the cost will be the same, but consider some of the items which will ensure that the new will go way way over the estimates.
1. No one can agree on the final concept
2. Once design starts, it gets continually changed to add more features
3. It takes so long that initial parts become out-dated and have to be replaced

Reproducing a frame limits the fantacies of those who have the power to change, with that in mind, if Grumman was unable to, could not the Navy request that someone do a modern or updated design of the C2 rather than go the route of SLEP? An a/c to fullfil that mission will always be needed, a turbofan would certainely be faster, hope it does not limit the range, more and more the Navy may need to get more range on it's supply a/c, land bases are getting way too political.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: LMP737
Posted 2009-02-19 20:00:55 and read 4608 times.



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 35):
Actually, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm currently involved in the SLEP program for the C-2 Greyhound, and the Navy has been talking about retooling the old Grumman factory to make new aircraft to eventually replace these already old airframes. However, the costs to do so have are nearly identical than just developing a brand new COD replacement, only this time maybe turbo jet/fan.

Also have been talks about using the V-22 as a replacement as well.



Being a Grumman fan I would love to see new build C-2's come off the production line. Throw in the cockpit of the E-2D, minus the radar work station for the right seater of course. Add to that newer engine and the eight blased prop you have a very capable COD.
I have to wonder how close the costs would be between a new build C-2 and a totally new aircraft. As we have seen new build aircraft for the DOD have a tendancy to ballon in cost. You also have to take into consideration that such a limited production run would make a new build even more expensive.

The more cost effective measure would be to use the V-22. Wonder what the differnces in payload would be.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: JakeOrion
Posted 2009-02-20 06:05:33 and read 4445 times.

Bah, I hijacked the thread. Sorry.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 36):
On paper they can initially say the cost will be the same, but consider some of the items which will ensure that the new will go way way over the estimates.
1. No one can agree on the final concept
2. Once design starts, it gets continually changed to add more features
3. It takes so long that initial parts become out-dated and have to be replaced

I understand your points, and they are true; however, in this case, the Navy has specifically said a simple 1 on 1 replacement for the COD. A troop/cargo hauler, nothing more, nothing less.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 36):
Reproducing a frame limits the fantacies of those who have the power to change, with that in mind, if Grumman was unable to, could not the Navy request that someone do a modern or updated design of the C2 rather than go the route of SLEP?

Would be just as expensive, if not more expensive, than going back to Grumman.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 37):
Throw in the cockpit of the E-2D, minus the radar work station for the right seater of course. Add to that newer engine and the eight blased prop you have a very capable COD.

Ask and yay shall receive.

Big version: Width: 640 Height: 480 File size: 31kb


The updated C-2, rewired with NP2000 and glass cockpit (or to us known as CNSATM.)

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-02-20 08:59:14 and read 4390 times.



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 38):
The updated C-2, rewired with NP2000 and glass cockpit (or to us known as CNSATM.)

Lovely, thanks for sharing, good to see something basic and logical can still be done.

Thanks

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-02-21 17:40:07 and read 4151 times.



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 35):
However, the costs to do so have are nearly identical than just developing a brand new COD replacement, only this time maybe turbo jet/fan.

A C-40A with a tail hook? The boys and girls in VR-59 at NAS Fort Worth won't be liking that.

 duck   duck   duck   duck   duck 

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: CX747
Posted 2009-02-21 20:01:23 and read 4103 times.

An earlier poster talked about McGuire AFB possibly wanting another C-17 squadron. Has there been any progress on NJ's only AFB getting another squadron? It would be nice to see a ramp that was once filled with C-141s filled again with large cargo aircraft.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: STT757
Posted 2009-02-21 20:19:33 and read 4104 times.



Quoting CX747 (Reply 41):
An earlier poster talked about McGuire AFB possibly wanting another C-17 squadron. Has there been any progress on NJ's only AFB getting another squadron? It would be nice to see a ramp that was once filled with C-141s filled again with large cargo aircraft.

McGuire definitely wants a second C-17 squadron, there's plenty of ramp space left on the 305th, 514th ramp. There used to be two squadrons of about 32 C-141s up until their retirement in 2004, Congressman Saxton who has been a huge supporter of the three bases in his District (Fort Dix, McGuire AFB, Lakehurst NAES) had been lobbying hard for a second squadron. Unfortunately he just retired, but I don't think that hurts McGuire's hopes of a second C-17 squadron.

There are some big happenings going on now at McGuire related to the 2005 BRAC, first and foremost involves the merging of Fort Dix, Lakehurst NAES and McGuire AFB. McGuire AFB and the 305th will now control all three bases, the Air Force will take over security, public services, administration etc..

A lot of investment has been made recently to support the C-17s, a new Northeast assault landing strip just opened at Lakehurst this past Summer. C-17s from McGuire and Dover practice assault landings on the 3,500 strip several times a day. My parents just moved to a retirement community in Jackson NJ and they are right under the flight paths for the assault landing strip, the C-17s are barely 1,000ft above their house. The C-17s do these landings at Lakehurst several times each day, it's really something to see.

Right now McGuire is hosting some Tennessee ANG C-5s from Memphis, they are temporarily relocated to McGuire while new digs are being constructed for them at MEM.

Also the big news is that within the next year or two will start the big move of aircraft from Willow Grove JRB (which is closing per BRAC) to McGuire AFB.

Beginning in 2011 almost 40 aircraft will move from Willow Grove to McGuire AFB,

Navy Reserve:
4 C-130Ts, 4 C-9s, 1 C-12

Marine Corps Reserve:
11 CH-53Es, 4 UH-1s, 7 AH-1s

Army Reserve:
3 C-35s, 5 C-12s

Also in a separate move the NJ Army National Guard will locate their Helicopters from Trenton Mercer Airport to Lakehurst NAES.

Here's the specific info:

http://www.samephiladelphiapost.org/...B%20McGuire%20Brief%20Sep%2008.pdf

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Gsosbee
Posted 2009-02-22 07:33:52 and read 4009 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 42):
Congressman Saxton who has been a huge supporter of the three bases in his District (Fort Dix, McGuire AFB, Lakehurst NAES) had been lobbying hard for a second squadron.

Off subject, but weren't these three bases/post realigned into one during the last BRAC?

[Edited 2009-02-22 07:34:37]

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Galaxy5007
Posted 2009-02-22 09:00:42 and read 3960 times.



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 43):
Off subject, but weren't these three bases/post realigned into one during the last BRAC?

It says that in his post....

Quoting STT757 (Reply 42):
There are some big happenings going on now at McGuire related to the 2005 BRAC, first and foremost involves the merging of Fort Dix, Lakehurst NAES and McGuire AFB. McGuire AFB and the 305th will now control all three bases, the Air Force will take over security, public services, administration etc..

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: Stitch
Posted 2009-02-22 09:49:29 and read 3942 times.

A recent article noted that Boeing was actually issuing contracts to suppliers for parts necessary to build 30 C-17s, not 15, on the belief that the USAF or another operator will order additional frames, as well.

So it is possible that the USAF may add beyond the current 15 or Boeing believes that some EU countries might be placing a small order.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: HanginOut
Posted 2009-02-22 12:29:47 and read 3878 times.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 45):
A recent article noted that Boeing was actually issuing contracts to suppliers for parts necessary to build 30 C-17s, not 15, on the belief that the USAF or another operator will order additional frames, as well.

It's likely to be the UAE that orders 2 of them, they're supposed to be announcing a deal to purchase C-130Js and C-17s on 23 Feb 2009.

Topic: RE: Air Force Gets 15 More C-17s
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2009-02-22 16:01:08 and read 3785 times.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 45):
So it is possible that the USAF may add beyond the current 15 or Boeing believes that some EU countries might be placing a small order.



Quoting HanginOut (Reply 46):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 45):
A recent article noted that Boeing was actually issuing contracts to suppliers for parts necessary to build 30 C-17s, not 15, on the belief that the USAF or another operator will order additional frames, as well.

It's likely to be the UAE that orders 2 of them, they're supposed to be announcing a deal to purchase C-130Js and C-17s on 23 Feb 2009.

Could it be France, Germany, or Spain?


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/