Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17  
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 14007 times:

The “FE,” for fuel efficient, would have a narrower fuselage by several feet than the aircraft now in production. It also would involve lightening of the structure through use of composites, says Tommy Dunehew, Boeing’s C-17 business development representative.

The goal is to meet the nominal Joint Future Theater Lift program. The concept "is fairly advanced," with the same engines, tails, and wing, Dunehew says.


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest



Some said the current C17/C130 combination is perfect and nothing inbetween is required.

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5262 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 13953 times:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Some said the current C17/C130 combination is perfect and nothing inbetween is required.

Its all about business and getting what you can from the platforms you can offer. $$$$ talks.

I am guessing that it is aimed at taking customers from the A400M market space.

If customers have complained that the C17 is just more than they need perhaps a smaller version is just what is needed. And if they can bring it in for less than the $200million of its parent and it gives a whole new life to the line then it is a good idea.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 13949 times:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Some said the current C17/C130 combination is perfect and nothing inbetween is required.

It is, but I don't see any reason for the C-17FE. Most new military vehicles are getting bigger, not smaller or narrower. Going "several feet smaller" in width would put it around the size of the C-141 cargo compartment, but probibly not as long.


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13830 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Going "several feet smaller" in width would put it around the size of the C-141 cargo compartment, but probibly not as long.

That was the impression I got too. The next question would be whether we'll see this new model of the C-17 stretched in years to come to meet airlift volume requirements. Flashbacks to the C-141B?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5611 posts, RR: 45
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13626 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Most new military vehicles are getting bigger, not smaller or narrower.


Somewhat counter intuitively that may be a reason for offering a narrower C-17.
With vehicles and equipment getting larger it is getting more difficult to load them 2 abreast, most current memebers of the Pirhana LAV family would have trouble, certainly larger tracked units will only fit in single file. Perhaps a longer and narrower variant might suit some customers.
Not everyone wants to carry M1A1/2 around.(could get an M1A1/2 in a narrower C-17 but you wouldn't want to lighten the structure much!)

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13598 times:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Some said the current C17/C130 combination is perfect and nothing inbetween is required.

"Some" not including Boeing for obvious reasons.

I'm rather amazed that a new fuselage is being bandied about. I would have thought - apart from it being non-trivial and hence expensive - that the gains would be small because all the other major components would stay "wrong sized".


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13587 times:

I think it might be feasible to un-M1A1/2 the C17. I understand the floor is very heavy and expensive because of it. Almost twice as heavy as a A400M. If you delete the MBT requirement, you can probably reduce OEW, increase efficiency and improve soft terrain/take-off performance. Big question is, can you also lower the price tag..

Australia 4 C-17, excluding support:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-to-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated-01971/
Support http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/topstories/5638.html

Canadas 4 C-17s:
“Canada First Defence Procurement – New Strategic & Tactical Airlift Fleets” notes that in addition to the C$4.9 billion program to replace its decaying CC-130 Hercules fleet of tactical transport aircraft, the new conservative government plans to spend C$ 1.8 billion (USD$ 1.6 billion) to buy strategic airlifters, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

Despite the A400M cost rises, they still don't come close to these price levels. Boeing challenge will be to make the C-17 really light, in everyway.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 13435 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Boeing challenge will be to make the C-17 really light, in everyway.

The article noted that they will "lightening of the structure through use of composites". Perhaps the same barrel technique used on the 787.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 5 days ago) and read 12983 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Australia 4 C-17, excluding support:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-to-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated-01971/
Support http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/topstories/5638.html

Canadas 4 C-17s:
“Canada First Defence Procurement – New Strategic & Tactical Airlift Fleets” notes that in addition to the C$4.9 billion program to replace its decaying CC-130 Hercules fleet of tactical transport aircraft, the new conservative government plans to spend C$ 1.8 billion (USD$ 1.6 billion) to buy strategic airlifters, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

Despite the A400M cost rises, they still don't come close to these price levels. Boeing challenge will be to make the C-17 really light, in everyway.

Here we go again on the international price issue, again. Keesje, and others only talk about the A-400 costs only, but highlight the total costs of the C-17 with the "packages" countries buy. Again, Keesje, it is not just the airplane price, but it INCLUDES the spares, training, and maintenance support for XX years. For some countries, it also includes mission planning/scheduling packages, too. The SAAF canceled the A-400 because the price, which included the 'packages' balloned to over 700M Euros per airplane. That was BEFORE the new pricing agreement EADS and its EU customers are still talking about for the 'new' contracts.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Boeing challenge will be to make the C-17 really light, in everyway.

The article noted that they will "lightening of the structure through use of composites". Perhaps the same barrel technique used on the 787.

That could be, but I don't see any reason Boeing could not do that with the current size of the fuselage on the C-17. Both it and the B-787s are WBs.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12965 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Again, Keesje, it is not just the airplane price, but it INCLUDES the spares, training, and maintenance support for XX years. For some countries, it also includes mission planning/scheduling packages, too.

Indeed, $1.6 B purchasing + $1.6B support for 4 aircraft / 20 yrs.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
the new conservative government plans to spend C$ 1.8 billion (USD$ 1.6 billion) to buy strategic airlifters, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

$ 1.6 B purchasing for 4 C-17s sounds in line with other quotes I have seen.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The SAAF canceled the A-400 because the price, which included the 'packages' balloned to over 700M Euros per airplane.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
the new conservative government plans to spend C$ 1.8 billion (USD$ 1.6 billion) to buy strategic airlifters, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.


Here we go again on the seemingly unerasable non -ense that folks like to surround the A400M with.

Last October, the then CEO of the country’s defence acquisition, sales and research and development agency Armscor, Sipho Thomo, told the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Defence that the acquisition costs for South Africa for all eight A400Ms had soared from R17-billion to R47-billion – an increase of R30-billion (roughly €2,8-billion) for South Africa alone. 
Airbus then, and since, has vehemently denied this, at that time stating that “the price tag which has been attributed to Armscor’s CEO, Mr Sipho Thomo, is wildly exaggerated.”
...
A crude calculation, assum-ing the cost increase is the same for each and every aeroplane, would mean the programme, if South Africa were still a member, would have cost this country about another €19,5-million or roughly R200-million for each A400M, or something like €156-million, or R1,6-billion in total – a far cry from Thomo’s R30-billion figure.

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...he-ending-of-a400m-deal-2010-03-26

SAA A400M would probably cost around $ 190 million including prices rises (of which EADS said would not be forwarded to export customers! ). Roughly half of what Australia paid for their C-17, years ago.

Anybody claiming the A400M is 12 tonnes overweight btw?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12659 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 9):
Here we go again on the seemingly unerasable non -ense that folks like to surround the A400M with.

Last October, the then CEO of the country’s defence acquisition, sales and research and development agency Armscor, Sipho Thomo, told the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Defence that the acquisition costs for South Africa for all eight A400Ms had soared from R17-billion to R47-billion – an increase of R30-billion (roughly €2,8-billion) for South Africa alone. 
Airbus then, and since, has vehemently denied this, at that time stating that “the price tag which has been attributed to Armscor’s CEO, Mr Sipho Thomo, is wildly exaggerated.”
...
A crude calculation, assum-ing the cost increase is the same for each and every aeroplane, would mean the programme, if South Africa were still a member, would have cost this country about another €19,5-million or roughly R200-million for each A400M, or something like €156-million, or R1,6-billion in total – a far cry from Thomo’s R30-billion figure.
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...he-ending-of-a400m-deal-2010-03-26

SAA A400M would probably cost around $ 190 million including prices rises (of which EADS said would not be forwarded to export customers! ). Roughly half of what Australia paid for their C-17, years ago.

Oh yeah, we can believe EADS-----NOT. Since the SAAF canceled their order for the A-400, we have seen EADS demanding more money per unit from their EU customers for a less capable airplane than what the EU customers originally wanted. EADS has essentially torn up the 2004 contracts as they no longer like the "fixed pricing" concept. Is that an indication on how they will treat the USAF KC-X contract (which is also a fixed price contract)?

BTW, nice try at deflecting the SA costs, by using the price per airplane, and fogetting the entire program of 14 airplanes (8 firm plus 6 option aircraft). Using you numbers, that alone comes to some R22.4B, which is a little closer to the R30B, isn't it. Somehow, I think Thomo knows a little more about the screw job EADS was trying with SA than you do. Perhaps EADS was using SA as a 'trial balloon' to see how the reaction would be once they started demanding the 'big money' from the EU customers?


User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 4 days ago) and read 12626 times:

Neither the A400M nor the C-17 have been flying off the shelves. It's hardly enlightening to look at their "captive" markets, so only the SA and India deals provide some insight. Which amounts to not very much. I hope you guys are not going to go around in circles for the considerable number of years these planes might still be on the market. If you do, why don't you open your own Keesje-KCTB thread? Thank you in advance!

Back on topic, I wonder if the barrel construction method is economically feasible for the C-17, taking into account cross sections, size of autoclave, and projected production runs.

Data:
C-17 Fuselage diameter 22.5 feet (6.86 m)
B787 Cross Section: 226 inches (574 centimeters)

Sources:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/c17spec.htm
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/787-9prod.html

One Autoclave manufacturer for the 787 program:
http://www.thermalequipment.com/

B787 barrel manufacturing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GDqxnahwbk&feature=player_embedded

How about substituting the body of the A400-M?      

Or using some of these:
http://www.compositesworld.com/cdn/cms/0908hpc-farn2.jpg
floor beam for the Boeing 787 passenger jet. Source: HITCO Carbon Composites

I like the idea of a non-Abrams rated C-17 "light".

M1 in a C-17...
http://www.march.afrc.af.mil/shared/...todb/photos/090306-F-9876C-005.jpg


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12573 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 11):
I wonder if the barrel construction method is economically feasible for the C-17

Are you wondering about the C-17 or the proposed C-17 light?

It's not the barrel section that makes it economical. It's the automation involved in using a fiber placed/tape laying machine to lay down your skins. If the autoclave is not large enough, then the fiber placed machine can still lay up the barrel, only it will then be split into smaller sections during the autoclave. You won't get as much savings as the complete barrel, but you will get a lot.

The real cost is to have to re-design the fuselage. Up-front engineering/cost would be prohibited for a C-17, but maybe not for a C-17 light.

The barrel section provide added structural efficiency which would benefit performance.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12525 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 12):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 11):
I wonder if the barrel construction method is economically feasible for the C-17

Are you wondering about the C-17 or the proposed C-17 light?

Why not wonder about both? Improve the basic C-17 ( -> Diet C-17 ) while designing a parallel C-17 Light with the same dimensions, but less carrying capacity and lighter structure?

Maybe Boeing is dreaming of a hybrid aircraft so the C-17 can be more easily reoffered in fifteen years... (pure back-of-the-mind speculation)

It's all very intriguing.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3214 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12511 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

it doesn't look as simple as using the 787 barrel upside down... there has got to be a lot of design work for the wing over and landing gear bays...

However could a 18 ft diameter meet the needs of the A/F ?


User currently offlineKennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12474 times:

And what is the market for this 'paper' project, and I wonder how much it would cost to develop. So much for trashing the A400, the C-17 wasn't that hot to begin with in those early years.

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 12444 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 13):
Why not wonder about both? Improve the basic C-17 ( -> Diet C-17 ) while designing a parallel C-17 Light with the same dimensions, but less carrying capacity and lighter structure?

If we have our ways, they would do both and provide jobs for many Engineers and support staff. Since the pool of Engineers and the computers that they have to use are a limited source, it would be difficult to juggle the C-17 redesign, the C-17 light (smaller fuselage), the Tanker (if they win), the 737 replacement, the 777 replacement, future helicopter work . . . Now that's a full plate!!!!

Quoting kanban (Reply 14):
However could a 18 ft diameter meet the needs of the A/F ?

What is the capability of the current fiber placed machine? What is the max diameter it can handle?

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12278 times:

I was thinking along the lines of an identical cross section, but with the Light version optimized for non-tank loads, as per Keesje. So the engineering of the Light would also benefit the standard version. It's pure speculation, as Boeing specifically talks about a narrower fuselage.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 16):
Quoting kanban (Reply 14):
However could a 18 ft diameter meet the needs of the A/F ?

What is the capability of the current fiber placed machine? What is the max diameter it can handle?

bikerthai

I recall reading that the present layup speed is not satisfactory or below expectations. I'd think the max diameter is mainly limited by the mandrel, which is definitely an impressive part.

Anyway, a lot is going on in the composite manufacturing world. We're shooting in the dark.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 12276 times:

I am really a bit surprised about a less capable C 17 (C 16X?) as I always expected the opposite to happen:


A stretched, higher Take-Off-Weight version with new engines.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 11713 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 18):
I am really a bit surprised about a less capable C 17 (C 16X?) as I always expected the opposite to happen:


A stretched, higher Take-Off-Weight version with new engines.

That would actually become a C-5 replacement. We do not need that for some 20-30 years now that the C-5M program is rolling.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 17):
the Light version optimized for non-tank loads, as per Keesje. So the engineering of the Light would also benefit the standard version. It's pure speculation, as Boeing specifically talks about a narrower fuselage.

Wouldn't that really be a sort of C-130X, the so-called 'fat herc' that LM has been looking at for a while now?


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11633 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Wouldn't that really be a sort of C-130X, the so-called 'fat herc' that LM has been looking at for a while now?

It's curious that they're keeping the same four engines for a smaller, lighter variant. Yes, I imagine it'd be about the size of the C-141 and shorter, but with a higher payload than the Herc --- along the lines of a "shrunk" C-17 with two bigger engines --- as their answer to the A400M, Embraer C390, Kawasaki C-2 and the planned Indo-Russian transport. Although something tells me that the "Joint" Future Theater Airlift would somehow end up as the AF's pet.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11630 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 17):
the Light version optimized for non-tank loads, as per Keesje. So the engineering of the Light would also benefit the standard version. It's pure speculation, as Boeing specifically talks about a narrower fuselage.

Wouldn't that really be a sort of C-130X, the so-called 'fat herc' that LM has been looking at for a while now?

Th3 C-17 has a payload of about 80 tonnes, the A400M of about 38 tonnes, the C130 of about 20 tonnes, the KC390 also about 20 tonnes.

Having a C17 version overlapping with a C130 seems impossible.



What's interesting is that both LM (fat Herc) and Boeing (C-17 Light) somehow feel the current C-17 + C130J combo isn't the perfect combination.


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5262 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11601 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
What's interesting is that both LM (fat Herc) and Boeing (C-17 Light) somehow feel the current C-17 + C130J combo isn't the perfect combination.

To me it is always the simple case is do the manufacturers see a market for their product. Do they have a product for the market space or do they need to develop one? There is never a case where a product solution/situation remains "the answer" into perpetuity. It always depends on the market. And sometimes a market does not exist until.... it does.

In this case I think the problems of the A400M has brought attention to a space that did not exist before but that might need to be filled and that LM and Boeing think they may be able to make a profit on.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3214 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 11561 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

could there be commercial roles for the C17 light that would make it viable??? look at all the third world rough field freighters

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2012 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11526 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 23):
could there be commercial roles for the C17 light that would make it viable???

So if given an opportunity, Qatar would have bought C-17 light for their "humanitarian needs" instead of the C-17?
Sounds plausible to me . . .

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
25 Galaxy5007 : I beg to differ; with the retirement of some of the A models, and hints of retiring all of the A models because none of them are getting RERPed, a re
26 dw747400 : Just out of curiosity, what specific limits do you see preventing a stretched, higher gross weight C-17 from replacing older C-5As?
27 Galaxy5007 : Its not the weight, its the size and capacity. They would have to redesign a landing gear system to support the extra weight, and increase the height
28 Post contains images keesje : Why is LM proposing a Fat Herc and Boeing a C/17 Light. For export ? I think everything would need to be bigger. But I don´t think the cross section
29 Tugger : Absolutely! There is already a market there that is not being met by the A400M. The A400M was supposed to meet it but with the problems the program i
30 keesje : I´m trying the find a major Defense LM / Boeing / MD / NG programs that was not launched on the back of US DOD funding... F4, F5, F6, F8, F14, F15,
31 bikerthai : The 737 AEW&C program . . . but Boeing lost money on the Australian version. I wonder if they got some of it back with Turkey and Korea? Aside: T
32 Tugger : Maybe not the original program, but there have been many derivatives of platforms that were launched without the backing of DoD funding, The F-15SE S
33 bikerthai : Also . . . Japanese and Italian 767 Tankers . . . As with anything not involving the US Arm Forces, the quantities for these program would be small. B
34 keesje : Yes, 707, 737, 747, 757, 767, DC10, DC9 also in US service. I would hardly call them defense programs though. They were derivatives with a customized
35 Post contains links and images bikerthai : True, these are not "pure-bred". But if you don't call them defense programs, then by that definition the KC-X or P-8 are not a defense programs eith
36 Post contains links and images 474218 : Lockheed and Boeing are proposing new versions of current airframes to sell more aircraft and keep their production lines open. The same reason Airbu
37 KC135TopBoom : But did the USAF decide that? IIRC, I believe it is around 50,000-60,000 flying hours and some 50,000 cycles.
38 Post contains links keesje : Yes, The USAF has acknowledged it may need an aircraft with more payload capacity than the C-130 after 2015. The US Army currently plans to acquire m
39 KC135TopBoom : That is why LM is looking at a 30-40 ton capable fatter C-130X. The NB C-17 could also fit the future USAF requirement. If the USAF is looking at the
40 keesje : Looking at the status of both the LM and BA ideas, eliminating the A400M might be a bit premature.
41 KC135TopBoom : Why? Both would be developed from current airplanes, and that places their development not very far behind where the A-400 is now.
42 keesje : - 6 to 10 years I think, looking at recent programs.
43 XT6Wagon : I think the status of the A400M eliminates the A400M quite nicely without any help from the US firms. The unit price for a A400M on even the most fav
44 keesje : No. The cost of the A400M have grown, but still nowhere close to the C-17. They want to keep the Long Beach line open and know congress more then sup
45 KC135TopBoom : Maybe you need to get a job with EADS selling A-400s?
46 474218 : You seem to contradict your self in the above statement. How can the C-130 be "roughly" the size needed but also be too small? And why would a 2010 b
47 XT6Wagon : Equipment naturaly grows in size if you let it. Many nations let vehicle makers break the C130's bay size for various reasons. So a bigger C130 makes
48 474218 : If that is true why doesn't the USAF have a fleet of Boeing C-14's or McDonnell Douglas C-15's, replacing the old C-130? Your to young to remember Vi
49 keesje : As said before there is IMO a clear requirement for an aircraft with the C-130 tactical performance, range , speed, soft terrain capability. Similar
50 KC135TopBoom : Keesje, are you now anti-A-400? Today's C-130J is a much different airplane than the C-130A of 1955. The basic C-130 has evolved into almost as many
51 474218 : There is just such an airplane in production right now, the C-130J. The YC-14 and YC-15 were built to replace the C-130. But they were found to be no
52 Post contains links and images keesje : IMO you do not have to be anti anything to value something else. Doing 27t load with a C-17 is also a waste of capability and money. Doesn't mean the
53 kanban : that's an awfully high standard .... it's like saying one can not compare the 747 and the A380 until comparable numbers are in service.... does that
54 KC135TopBoom : No. But most C-17, C-130, and C-5 missions are flown well below their max cargo carrying weights. The same will go with the A-400, too. Perhaps, but
55 ThePointblank : Perhaps Boeing, with its established relations with Kawasaki, should purchase the design for the C-X for licensed production in the US, and then try
56 bikerthai : If they do, wouldn't their constitution only allow the export as non military product? Now we are getting into the "gray" area of the constitution .
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17
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 Sells 4 C-17 To Emirates posted Tue Feb 24 2009 06:46:19 by Keesje
Boeing Predicts Good Year For C-17 posted Thu Feb 21 2008 12:21:59 by Kaitak
Boeing Set To Extend C-17 Production At Own Risk posted Mon Jun 18 2007 03:34:00 by T773ER
Long Beach C-17 Workers Turn Down Boeing Offer posted Mon Apr 30 2007 21:35:32 by Laxintl
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
Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 14:58:50 by DAYflyer
Boeing And Eurocopter Working On Large Helicopter posted Wed Jun 9 2010 01:40:25 by keesje
Boeing To License AW101 For Presidential Helo Bid posted Mon Jun 7 2010 06:29:32 by vcjc
Boeing Slashes F-18 Price, Navy Orders 124 More posted Mon May 17 2010 08:07:08 by STT757
Boeing P-8 Poseidon Neptune Wing Question posted Mon Aug 20 2012 14:15:57 by PHX787

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format