Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Shutting Down C-17 Line, When's The Right Moment?  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 15083 times:

The C-17 has been produced for many years. About 200 will be build. The C-17 plays a valuable role in militairy transport and will probably do so for another 40 years.

The C-17 can't be produced forever. At some point enough is enough for every aircraft type. Priorities change when a requirement is fullfilled.

http://www.air-attack.com/MIL/c17/c17vulcano_20090202.jpg

What would be the right amount of aircraft for western requirements and the right moment to call it a day on C-17 production?

[Edited 2009-10-06 05:56:56]

79 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15049 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When the orders finally run out and the backlog is exhausted?

User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15047 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
When the orders finally run out and the backlog is exhausted?

Simple answer but it hits the nail squarely on the head! I wouldn't count the C-17 production out any time too soon. Just about the time we think the line is going to close, some new export customer comes along and orders more.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15044 times:

Not only that, but I believe USAF will wind up dropping many of the C-5As and retaining only C-5Bs and C-5Ms for larger cargo. Something will be required to replace those C-5As.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2223 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15041 times:

I would wait and decide after EADS has canceled the A400M, or manages at last to produce a real production A400M aircraft, acceptable to the customers.
After that has happened a decision could be made about shutting down or proceeding with the C17 production, if no additional US order is booked.
In the meantime several C17's can be sold to air forces, that don't want to wait for another several years on their promised A400M's.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15021 times:



Quoting 747classic (Reply 4):
I would wait and decide after EADS has canceled the A400M, or manages at last to produce a real production A400M aircraft, acceptable to the customers.
After that has happened a decision could be made about shutting down or proceeding with the C17 production, if no additional US order is booked.
In the meantime several C17's can be sold to air forces, that don't want to wait for another several years on their promised A400M's.

Correct. It will also be relitively to develope and sell a cheaper version, the C-17B or C-17C that could be more attractive than the A-400M.

But, to answer Keesje's question, the line will shut down when all current and futyure orders are filled, and not before. Just look at the C-130 production line, still going strong after 50 + years in production.


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15016 times:

Until all candidates that must be replaced by C-17's will be replaced.

Why are C-130's produced until today? Because there is no successor.

Apply that to the C-17. It means that one day either a clean sheet design of the C-17 exists -or- new C-17 will be built. As far I can see, it is the only offering for the tasks, it is made for.

Some rare aircrafts replace aircrafts of the same type. The C-130 is one of them. Maybe the C-17 will be one of those too (What could you gain from a new clean sheet design, once the C-17 needs to be replaced?). But it would mean that for a long time the production rate would have to be sustained on the back burner.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15015 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
But, to answer Keesje's question, the line will shut down when all current and futyure orders are filled, and not before.

I assumed that  Wink

Anyway, would it be possible to freeze /store the production line in a way that in say ten years time a reengined improved C-17 line could be reopenend? No way it would be cheap, but better then designing something from the ground up.. has it been done before.


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15012 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
Anyway, would it be possible to freeze /store the production line in a way that in say ten years time a reengined improved C-17 line could be reopenend? No way it would be cheap, but better then designing something from the ground up.. has it been done before.

I would consider that a worst case scenario.

Surely in 10 years some improvements in technology, materials and production would occur. Freezing a production line locks future production into old technology and methods.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 14966 times:



Quoting 747classic (Reply 4):
I would wait and decide after EADS has canceled the A400M, or manages at last to produce a real production A400M aircraft, acceptable to the customers.

It's not up to EADS to cancel the A400M program. That's a decision made by the governments involved with the program. In spite of the problems with it I doubt that the partner nations are going to pull the plug on it at this point.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12966 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14945 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
When the orders finally run out and the backlog is exhausted?

More precisely, when the Congress stops inserting orders into the budget that the USAF didn't request.

Ref: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/..._co/us_congress_defense_spending_4

$2.5B for 10 C-17s the USAF didn't ask for, because C-17s have parts produced in almost every state in the US. Money is being taken from, wait for this: operations and maintenance accounts!

Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
Not only that, but I believe USAF will wind up dropping many of the C-5As and retaining only C-5Bs and C-5Ms for larger cargo. Something will be required to replace those C-5As.

Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy - just underfund the C-5, overfund the C-17 and voila!

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12966 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14943 times:

In case you want to see an interesting exercise in politics:

http://c17foramerica.com/



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14933 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 8):
Surely in 10 years some improvements in technology, materials and production would occur. Freezing a production line locks future production into old technology and methods.

I can imagine that in say 10 years cpasity is required and a reengined (GENX ?) stretched C17 could become feasible while it is not at this moment. Spend a $200 million to store critical infrastructure and keep the line "healthy" might not be a bad investment.



User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12966 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14917 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
Anyway, would it be possible to freeze /store the production line in a way that in say ten years time a reengined improved C-17 line could be reopenend? No way it would be cheap, but better then designing something from the ground up.. has it been done before.

According to

http://www.delawareonline.com/articl...0090921/NEWS02/909210333/1006/NEWS

Quote:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Air Force has enough C-17s -- if congressional designs come to pass, the fleet will total 223 aircraft, up from an original order of 180. Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has amended the administration's spending plan for the year that begins Oct. 1 to include $674 million for three new C-17s. The Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Inouye, went the House panel one better, agreeing unanimously to provide $2.59 billion for 10 additional C-17s -- in addition to eight aircraft included in a supplemental fiscal 2009 spending bill signed by President Barack Obama in June. Both committees deleted $91.4 million requested by Gates for shutting down Boeing's C-17 assembly line.

So the bare minimum figure will be $91.4M.

I don't know what's covered in that figure.

I do know the C-17 final assembly line is in Long Beach, and Boeing has sold off all the surrounding land to developers, presumably at a good profit, so I doubt we will see that factory itself mothballed.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 14848 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
What would be the right amount of aircraft for western requirements and the right moment to call it a day on C-17 production?

For the USAF/ AFR/ ANG 232 sounds about right, if we also factor in parking some C-5A's then add another 20-30 for something between 252 and 262.

Here's how I would laydown the C-17 fleet;

Elmendorf AFB
13
Hickam AFB
13
Travis AFB
13
McChord AFB
52
Altus AFB
8
Mississippi ANG
8
McGuire AFB
26
Dover AFB
13
Charleston AFB
52
March ARB
16
Ramstein AB
13
Andrews AFB
8



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 14846 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
Anyway, would it be possible to freeze /store the production line in a way that in say ten years time a reengined improved C-17 line could be reopenend? No way it would be cheap, but better then designing something from the ground up.. has it been done before.

The tooling to build new C-17s in the future will be stored somewhere.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):
So the bare minimum figure will be $91.4M.

I don't know what's covered in that figure.

That would usually cover disassembly, creating, and handling the tooling that is to be stored. It may not cover the cost to transport the tooling to a storage site. For storage, there are generally two possibilities;

1. pay the OEM to store the tooling onsite or at a site of their selection. In which case the OEM would be responsible for safe keeping, maintenance, and security of the tooling while it is in storage.

2. transport all the tooling to AMARC for storage in the desert, in which case the USAF is responsible for safe keeping, maintenance, and security.

If at some future time, the C-17 line is selected to reopen, that contract will cover transport to the production site, refurbishment, assembly, and any updating needed.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 14807 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
Anyway, would it be possible to freeze /store the production line in a way that in say ten years time a reengined improved C-17 line could be reopenend? No way it would be cheap, but better then designing something from the ground up.. has it been done before.

It happened with the C-5...



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7665 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14742 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 16):
It happened with the C-5...

I think the key to this topic, the C-17 was designed at its existing size and capacity to sit above the C-130 and below the C-5. The C-17 cannot replace the C-5, eventually the C5 has to be replaced, the re-engine program may put the a/c in the air more often which will ensure that the frame hour arrive sooner rather than later.
The C-17C is probably the way to go, irrespective of the name everything on the a/c seems to be up-sized, at least it will be Boeings offer for the C-5 replacement.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 14657 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 17):
The C-17 cannot replace the C-5,

Wrong, C5 is great on paper but the various issues with it as the frames age HAS made the USAF plan around not having them avalible. There is no doubt that the C5 when it works is amazing, but that "when it works" has sealed its fate past what can be done on the "cheap" to keep current frames as long as possible. This means the USAF plans around the existing fleet, and all new things that might need transport have to fit in a C17.

So at this time we are going to see a continuation of the C17 taking a bigger and bigger portion of the heavy lift pie as the C5 slowly sheds frames due to crashes, frames needing too much repairs, etc.

With the current lack of anything new in the heavy lift world, I wouldn't be suprised if the C17 lasts for 20-30 more years in slow rate production. Given that developing any military transport today seems to be an excersise in empyting your own wallets I don't see anything new arriving anytime soon.

Course the real question for Kesseje is when does the A400M line shut down? If I can go get a spot from the USAF in the C17 production line for pennies more than a A400M, why wouldn't I if I was shopping for something that the C130 can't do? I can even get my 1st frame in a year or less. I fail to see the reasoning behind ordering a A400M unless I already am neck deep in the program. Or wallet deep anyway.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12966 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14601 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
With the current lack of anything new in the heavy lift world, I wouldn't be suprised if the C17 lasts for 20-30 more years in slow rate production. Given that developing any military transport today seems to be an excersise in empyting your own wallets I don't see anything new arriving anytime soon.

Boeing claims it takes around 15 frame a year to keep the line moving without making a loss. Seems we may up with more C-17s than KC-135s?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
Course the real question for Kesseje is when does the A400M line shut down?

Maybe the EU politicians will be as self-interested as the US ones?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14494 times:

One other thing is -- the oldest C-17s are now nearing 20 years old. How much useful life is programmed into them?


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14463 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 20):

One other thing is -- the oldest C-17s are now nearing 20 years old. How much useful life is programmed into them?

Probably more than twenty years, and more if they are upgraded. Also, remember that the military tends to not fly their planes as much as airlines.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14460 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
Boeing claims it takes around 15 frame a year to keep the line moving without making a loss. Seems we may up with more C-17s than KC-135s?

That would be another 25 years of USAF production, I just don't see that unless a production go ahead is given to the C-17 as a C-5 replacement. That would alos mean a nose swing up cargo door, the C-17A does not have.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
Quoting N328KF (Reply 20):

One other thing is -- the oldest C-17s are now nearing 20 years old. How much useful life is programmed into them?

Probably more than twenty years, and more if they are upgraded. Also, remember that the military tends to not fly their planes as much as airlines.

The C-17, like all other big USAF jets is programmed for at least 40 years of service. So, we are looking at at least another 20 years before the first C-17s retire to AMARC (not counting any put into flyable storage).


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 14404 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
Boeing claims it takes around 15 frame a year to keep the line moving without making a loss. Seems we may up with more C-17s than KC-135s?

Given the great wide expanse of nothing else being made in this class... Its very possible the C17 line will keep cranking along. The costs to stop and start the line have to scare the hell out of the USAF where they might close the line thinking they have plenty just to find out they are very short just a few years later if they have any issues with any of thier lift.

I also thought Boeing negotated with the USAF to take some money now to reorganize the line for cheaper production at a lower rate.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12966 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 14400 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 17):
I think the key to this topic, the C-17 was designed at its existing size and capacity to sit above the C-130 and below the C-5.

Actually it was designed as a C-141 replacement, no?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
That would be another 25 years of USAF production, I just don't see that unless a production go ahead is given to the C-17 as a C-5 replacement. That would alos mean a nose swing up cargo door, the C-17A does not have.

Indeed, but as we see the Congress-critters of both parties taking money away from maintenance budget to buy more C-17s that the USAF didn't ask for, one can see that with time the number of flyable C-5s will drop significantly and the USAF will have not much choice but make do with C-17s.

What stuff requires the nose cargo door?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
25 Galaxy5007 : You all have to remember that the C-17 was a replacement to the C-141. It will NEVER be a replacement to the C-5, and the C-17C idea is no exception.
26 TF39 : Is 9 balls-18 still around? We used to call it Hanger 18
27 Galaxy5007 : 9018 is with Memphis. Its been one of their better jets. It was always in the hanger when it was with Dover...either that or it was in CANN status wh
28 Post contains links Mymorningsong : http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_13430031 "If it shutters, federal officials estimate it would cost at least $1 billion to reopen for future production
29 Par13del : My point was that the current C-17 is not in the same class as the C5 - as in max pauload and size of payload -. Unless the USAF decides that it no l
30 NorCal : What would it take to make a C-17C? New wing box, new wing, fueselage strengthening, reworked landing gear? What engines would they throw under the wi
31 Revelation : It seems to me that by underfunding the maintenance budget and funding unreqeusted C-17s, Congress is making the decisions, not the USAF.
32 Par13del : On paper that is the way it seems but the USAF has to take the full blame for that situation. The problems with the C-5 have been known for years and
33 KC135TopBoom : If the USAF decides they want the C-17B and/or C-17C versions, they must define a mission for them that the C-17A or the C-5A/B/C/M cannot do, or wil
34 NorCal : Strap 4 GE-90s on a C-17C and you have a mission that the C-5 Can't do......tactical T/O performance with a strategic payload. You could take 2 MBTs
35 Galaxy5007 : Yes, it would be what I would call the C-50A. It wouldn't even resemble a 17 with the mods it would need. If the USAF needs a C-5 sized aircraft in t
36 KC135TopBoom : It is my understanding the tooling is now stored at AMARC.
37 Jackonicko : What would be the right amount of aircraft for western requirements and the right moment to call it a day on C-17 production? C-17 production will end
38 Par13del : How do you eliminate the mission of the C-130, there are still missions which define the a/c used, the new mantra of changing or fitting your mission
39 474218 : The C-5 assembly tooling is scattered about the north east corner of the Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta. It has been stored outside for decades
40 KC135TopBoom : Actually, we don't really know that (when the C-17 production line will close), yet. We don't know who MIGHT order the C-17 in the future. The C-5M w
41 Jackonicko : Actually, we don't really know that (when the C-17 production line will close), yet. We don't know who MIGHT order the C-17 in the future. We don't kn
42 DEVILFISH : The wonder of it is why the question is being asked at all? The right moment would be when it's not competitive and useful anymore. When it can no lon
43 Jackonicko : Someone has to pay the cost of keeping a line (and in this case an entire plant) open. Boeing can't and Uncle Sam won't.
44 KC135TopBoom : Perhaps, the US Senate has added 10 new C-17s for a 2013 delivery, the House added 4. They will need to compromise on the number, I think they will s
45 DEVILFISH : We might be surprised. The Government did it for the automakers. It's not too far-fetched to think they would also do it for a strategic industry. As
46 N328KF : I'm not sure if the RAF orders were replacement of or supplemental to A400M orders, but the original C-17 order was intended to be temporary. The air
47 474218 : The original 2 leased RAF C-17 were leased directly from Boeing. At the end of the lease they were to be returned to Boeing, not the USAF.
48 N328KF : Right, and at the time, who would have taken them? The Salvation Army? There were no other C-17 customers at the time.
49 RFields5421 : Well, no one thought anyone would take the Soviet Air Force IL-76 and AN-124 aircraft - and look how many are flying around in private hands today. F
50 Jackonicko : Not without civil certification.
51 DEVILFISH : Nor an OK from the DoD, I would think.
52 474218 : To quote you? "The aircraft would have gone BACK to the USAF eventually". Since they were never USAF aircraft they could not go BACK to them. They we
53 N328KF : That's my point. Nobody but USAF would have taken them (at the time.) Things changed later, but at that point in time, the C-17 was not considered an
54 RFields5421 : Today one of the major customers for AN-124 aircraft is the US Department of Defense. Yes, there would have to be some approvals - but if IL-76 and A
55 Revelation : Yet I doubt the Congress would have funded the purchase. They'd rather see that jobs and thus votes get provided via new builds. As far as they are c
56 BMI727 : I don't know exactly what the paperwork is on that, but the C-141 may have civilian certification since NASA has flown/does fly one.
57 474218 : The C-141 was FAA Certified during its flight test program in the 1960's. Its T.C.D.S. number is A2SO.[Edited 2009-10-12 12:30:23]
58 KC135TopBoom : The RAF has not cancelled any A-400Ms. They bought the 6 C-17s they have now, and may by 4-9 more. They ordred additional C-130Js, and have not cance
59 NA : As there is not a single type even on the horizon which could be used instead of the C-17 I think it would be stupid to close the line. I really like
60 Burkhard : " target=_blank>http://c17foramerica.com/ Really interesting, that is how lobby work is done. Looking into what is needed by the USAF and other air f
61 Caliatenza : i think India is considering ordering some C17's ???
62 EBJ1248650 : It wouldn't be surprising to see India order some. I maintain the production line will remain open for a few more years because there's no indication
63 NA : They showed interest but now that plan has been deferred due to money shortage as much as I read somewhere some weeks ago.
64 KC135TopBoom : Other POSSIBLE C-17 new customers include Germany, France, Saudia Arabia, and Iraq.
65 Galaxy5007 : Well, I found out something interesting today. A few days ago, Wright-Patterson and Lackland swapped two jets. Lackland gave WPAFB 70-0453, which is a
66 BMI727 : It's cute until you are up close, then it is huge. By the way, they were marketed to civilians as the MD-17 and later the BC-17. Despite probably hav
67 KC135TopBoom : It sounds like you may be right.
68 Jackonicko : The biggest thing that has kept the MD17/BC17 as paper airplanes is the same thing that has kept the KC-17 there. Boeing are terrified that these mode
69 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : I don't see how. The BC-17 would be in a much different cargo class than any other new build Boeing freighter. It carries much bigger outsized cargo
70 474218 : " target=_blank>http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i...30292 If they are going to cancel their order for the A-400m's because they don't have the mon
71 N328KF : The C-141Cs are/were operated by USAF on behalf of NASA. Th ExIm Bank?
72 BMI727 : I agree. The cheap competitors from Eastern Europe and the high price tag are probably what did it. I don't know if it's used anymore. The C-141 was
73 KC135TopBoom : yes, the C-141 is retired from both the USAF and NASA, including the one C-141A NASA had.
74 JarheadK5 : The 63 C-141Cs the USAF had were B-models that were upgraded to glass cockpits. You may be thinking of the two C-5Cs that were modified to accomodate
75 R2rho : Well, there's a lot of things to be considered in such a decision as shutting down the line, but I'd simplify it in this way: The C-17 is the last lar
76 Par13del : Sounds good and practical, there just happens to be one hitch, Boeing is a purely private concern, even the "subsidies" that they receive from the US
77 Galaxy5007 : What they should do is order another 40 jets, and put the oldest/high time 17s in storage. That way when you have losses, or major damage to aircraft
78 Par13del : That it would, but based on the way the Military Industrial Complex operates today and prices its products and services, you can rest assured that yo
79 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : What about the C-130J-30, "Fat" C-130 version, B-747-8F, B-777F, B-767F, all of which are in production or developement/proposed? I think the enginee
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Shutting Down C-17 Line, When's The Right Moment?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing To Shut Down C-17 Line.... posted Fri Aug 18 2006 18:09:49 by AirRyan
Boeing Tells Usaf The C-17 Line Is Closing posted Thu Jul 13 2006 18:19:38 by Revelation
End Of The Line For The C-17? posted Fri Nov 4 2005 23:08:15 by Lumberton
This Never Happen When The Usaf Had SAC posted Mon Mar 1 2010 11:52:12 by KC135TopBoom
When The Weapon Is Just Jet Noise At Low Level posted Wed May 23 2007 00:14:38 by GDB
Does LM Have The Right Answer? posted Sat Feb 3 2007 17:22:34 by KC135TopBoom
Could A C-17 Drop Repair The Levees? posted Fri Sep 2 2005 01:48:24 by FlyBoeing
Looks Like When The IAF Was Up Here They Hid Up At posted Fri Nov 19 2004 14:50:44 by L-188
Will Fighter Replace Bombers Down The Line? posted Mon Mar 27 2006 23:55:31 by 747400sp
CASA, Chilean Air Force, Gone Down In The Pacific posted Fri Sep 2 2011 23:16:30 by AR385

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format