Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing To Fund C-17 Production For Additional Year  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24854 posts, RR: 46
Posted (12 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11059 times:

Boeing says it will invest company funds on long-lead components to protect the continued production of C-17.

Potentially up to 12 white-tails would be manufactured beyond current order commitments, but Boeing says it is in discussions with a range of new and existing international customers.

Based on this lead time commitment, production would continue through late 2015.

Story:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...tion-on-anticipated-demand-388983/

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30578 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10991 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Can't see them building that many unless they were confident someone is going to take them.

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10897 times:

Other than the additional range added to what is sometimes called the "C-17ER," are there any substantial differences between C-17s? Surely, the later ones have some modification. Furthermore, are there differences between the units produced for one customer or the other? I do recall that UK production came from line numbers originally intended for USAF, but I could understand there being little modification in those cases.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12339 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10864 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
I do recall that UK production came from line numbers originally intended for USAF, but I could understand there being little modification in those cases.

Coffee maker modified for tea production, A/C driven from left hand side.  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinevenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10839 times:

Maybe NATO at Papa will take on some more airframes than the 3 they already have, they are kept quite busy.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12339 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10775 times:

10 more Boeing C-17s = 40+ more PW2000s !  


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 months 9 hours ago) and read 10473 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
"C-17ER," are there any substantial differences between C-17s?

The 'ER' mod was begun pretty early on in the production run and was incorporated in every frame since then. Having said that, I'd be very surprised if the early USAF birds without the extra tanks haven't already been modified to add them in the name of fleet commonality if nothing else. Its a mod that can be carried out at the heavy maintenance intervals.


Apart from that, I don't believe there is any major differences between the C-17 fleets around the world, save for perhaps minor changes (metric vs imperial numering etc) and options that various countries have ticked the box for. Certainly all the countries that have signed onto the GSP are pretty well obligated to maintain a config very similar to the USAF.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
I do recall that UK production came from line numbers originally intended for USAF,

So did most, if not all of the RAAF fleet, and no doubt a lot of overseas sales. Don't forget that the USAF has been given a lot of airframes that they didn't really want, so if they come a bit later it really doesnt bother them.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 months 8 hours ago) and read 10462 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
Other than the additional range added to what is sometimes called the "C-17ER," are there any substantial differences between C-17s?

There were a number of internal variations between C-17's depending on when they were produced.
- Block 9 features differences in its avionics, panels and design structures and in its Airlift Defensive System from earlier Block 8 C-17s.
- Block 10 aircraft featured a redesigned tail, which was lighter and easier to produce than the previous tail. Primarily, it featured a new hybrid composite/metal structure that is 20 percent lighter than the all-metal tail. Additionally, the new tail component eliminates 90 percent of the parts, 81 percent of the fasteners, and 70 percent of the tools needed to produce the tail.
- Block 11 aircraft featured automatic pressurization and depressurization; aircrew data transfer device (allows the automatic upload of worldwide navigational data, maintenance date and loadmaster software); chest-mounted oxygen regulator (allows loadmaster to move about the cabin during certain high-altitude airdrops); and electric production improvement project (rewiring of aircraft to make it easier and less costly to produce).
- Block 12 was what most would call the -ER upgrade, as it entailed a fuel tank mounted in the centre wing box.
- Block 13 added Terrain Awareness Warning System, a reactive wind sheer warning system and various computer upgrades
- Block 16 added a new weather radar (Honeywell AN/APS-150), improved Onboard Inert Gas-Generating System, improved stabilizer strut system, and additional avionics

We are currently at Block 18 right now, with the later blocks being different by having various avionics upgrades.


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9955 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
We are currently at Block 18 right now, with the later blocks being different by having various avionics upgrades.

All of the USAF Aircraft are currently undergoing modifications to the Block 18 standard as they approach their GRIP cycles. The ER tanks are still missing from a good chunk of the pre- P-70 fleet, but they are working on it. It isn't part of the Block upgrade system, despite it being included with Block 12 and up. It is just a separate TCTO that is completed at Kelly or Robins. Very little is different between the USAF and International C-17s. Even the GRIP cycle is the same and they return for their regular scheduled maintenance at Robins or Kelly, depending on which maintenance is required.

According to Boeing, the current jets are at the 18 standard, but they are Block 22 production aircraft. Nothing has really changed since 18, but I'm throwing that out there.


User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9882 times:

Any chance the USAF will order more? I mean with the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, AMC is being taxed in terms of personnel and equipment. I have to think that some of the older C-17s have to be getting close to the end of their life expectancy in terms of hours flown.

Marc


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 9759 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 9):
Any chance the USAF will order more? I mean with the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, AMC is being taxed in terms of personnel and equipment. I have to think that some of the older C-17s have to be getting close to the end of their life expectancy in terms of hours flown.

Marc

No, there is no chance under the current budget problems of the USAF ordering more C-17s, even if they wanted them. The oldest C-17s are just approaching mid-life. Afghanistan is winding down, and the USAF is looking to cut some 65,000 troop positions in the next several years. Some of those will come from the C-17 weapons system.

The USAF wants and needs the KC-46 more than it needs the C-17, so it will not put those KC-46 dollars in jeopardy.


User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9680 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
No, there is no chance under the current budget problems of the USAF ordering more C-17s, even if they wanted them. The oldest C-17s are just approaching mid-life. Afghanistan is winding down, and the USAF is looking to cut some 65,000 troop positions in the next several years. Some of those will come from the C-17 weapons system.

It just astounds me that with our current fleet of airlifters, if another major conflict were to break out, we might not have the ability to get troops and supplies wherever they may be needed. I'm personally a big supporter of the C-5, but even those are dwindling in number and availability.

Do you see the CRAF being used morese in a potential future conflict?

Marc


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9678 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 11):

It just astounds me that with our current fleet of airlifters, if another major conflict were to break out, we might not have the ability to get troops and supplies wherever they may be needed. I'm personally a big supporter of the C-5, but even those are dwindling in number and availability.

Afghanistan was kind of a anomaly as we fought a war in a landlocked nation, where we had to fly in the bulk of the troops, their equipment, and supplies. With most of the world readily accessible from the sea, sealift will be the primary method of getting stuff to where it needs to be.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30578 posts, RR: 84
Reply 13, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9678 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
No, there is no chance under the current budget problems of the USAF ordering more C-17s, even if they wanted them.

The trick is, Congress orders airplanes for the USAF, not the USAF.  


User currently offlinevenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 9678 times:

I've noticed on the earlier C-17's the APU inlet door is different, will they be upgrading to a current standard or just keep them until they get retired?


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3503 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9678 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting venus6971 (Reply 14):

Where is that door located? Interesting observation & I'd like to check it out myself...



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9184 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 15):

Right hand side-pod, forward of the wheels and roughly in line with the top of the struts while on the ground.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9004 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):No, there is no chance under the current budget problems of the USAF ordering more C-17s, even if they wanted them.
The trick is, Congress orders airplanes for the USAF, not the USAF.

Yeah, but with a smaller Air Force those new airplanes will make good gate guards.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8201 times:

Boeing should offer the aircraft around the world saying last chanse. No equal freighter is in production nor will be in many years time.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8123 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 18):
Boeing should offer the aircraft around the world saying last chanse. No equal freighter is in production nor will be in many years time.

I think that is what they are doing.


User currently offlinevenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8062 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 15):
Where is that door located? Interesting observation & I'd like to check it out myself...

It is on the same location but looks like a rectangle with curved corners, saw it on a early 90's model in the AOR probably from Charleston.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10743 posts, RR: 31
Reply 21, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6487 times:

Another update, Boeing will end the C-17 production in 2015 and close the factory in Long Beach. Staff will be reduced by 3,000 starting in 2014.

Here's the whole story:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2013-09-...on-of-C-17-Globemaster-III-in-2015



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetimpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 530 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6477 times:

Also on the front page of the L.A. Times

3000 workers on project currently, layoffs begin "early next year" until the program wraps up in 2015

short fair use quote:

BY W.J. HENNIGAN | 1:06 p.m.
Boeing Co. says it plans to complete production of the C-17 cargo jet and close the final assembly facility in Long Beach in 2015. The move marks the end of the last major airplane production line left in SoCal.


User currently offlinegarudaa From India, joined Nov 2011, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6286 times:

There has been a word going around for sometime that the Indian Air Force might go in for 10 more frames. I see that the defense committee for acquisition has approved for more C-130s and I guess another news about C-17 is not far..      

User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7063 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6248 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3):
Coffee maker modified for tea production, A/C driven from left hand side.

Just evil 
Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 9):
I mean with the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, AMC is being taxed in terms of personnel and equipment.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
No, there is no chance under the current budget problems of the USAF ordering more C-17s, even if they wanted them.

Prior to the budget crisis the Air Focre never wanted additional frames, so the notion of them maxing out the fleet is that real,,, or were they at the time trying to get more F-22's then the F-35?


25 KarelXWB : Boeing today said the C-17 production line will close in mid-2015 instead of late 2015.
26 KC135TopBoom : Correct, now looking to close the Long Beach line during the summer of 2015, about 3 months earlier than previously announced.
27 huff41 : It needs to be remembered that Congress bought the last 52 C-17A that USAF didn’t want. USAF always takes the heat, but Cogressmen with their adment
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing To Fund C-17 Production For Additional Year
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 Set To Extend C-17 Production At Own Risk posted Mon Jun 18 2007 03:34:00 by T773ER
Boeing To License AW101 For Presidential Helo Bid posted Mon Jun 7 2010 06:29:32 by vcjc
Report: Congress Expected To Fund Additional C-17s posted Fri Sep 22 2006 01:25:37 by Lumberton
Boeing To Shut Down C-17 Line.... posted Fri Aug 18 2006 18:09:49 by AirRyan
How Much C-17 Production Is Left? posted Mon Apr 1 2013 07:47:42 by Newark727
Boeing Gets New $1.9B Order For USN P-8A posted Sat Sep 22 2012 08:36:08 by KC135TopBoom
Boeing To Close Wichita Facility posted Wed Jan 4 2012 09:06:05 by Stitch
What Ever Happen To The A-330 Desitined For KC-X? posted Tue Mar 8 2011 10:32:25 by USAF336TFS
Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17 posted Mon Jun 21 2010 15:21:52 by keesje
Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎ posted Thu Mar 4 2010 10:33:40 by yazoo

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format