Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5301 times:
I just read this today (did a search and couldn't find any similar threads). Although there has been speculation of follow on orders, this article says that those plans have been scrapped.
What is REALLY interesting is that this issue will pit that rabid defense hawk, Barbara Boxer, against the liberal-who-wants-to-leave-America-defenseless, Donald Rumsfield! Don't worry, Barbara. You won't have to face the voters for 4 more years.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Echster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5256 times:
This country has a lot of weapons the DOD tried to kill but Congress kept funding. This may be another one of those programs. Really what the USAF is saying is, "we'd like 42 more but we need the funding."
With that said, all of this will be moot if the USAF gets a tanker like the B777/B787/A330 that has airlift capabilities. I don't think there'd be a need for more $180 million C-17s when you can put pallets on a bigger tanker.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5244 times:
Somehow I think that IF there is something the world (not only the US, but also its allies) really needs, than it is global airlift capacity. I think the C-17 is one of the few military projects the USA really need, as it is vital for a global superpower to bring in supplies wherever,whenever needed.
Jaws707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 708 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5230 times:
I have read that England is very happy with their 4 C17's. I know they have the A400 on order, but have they considered an additional order for at least a few more C17's? Are there any other countries that might consider this aircraft, I know it is overkill for most, but I am sure others could use it.
MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 16 Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5152 times:
Quoting Echster (Reply 1): With that said, all of this will be moot if the USAF gets a tanker like the B777/B787/A330 that has airlift capabilities. I don't think there'd be a need for more $180 million C-17s when you can put pallets on a bigger tanker.
The C17 is a very unique aircraft that can not be replaced by the 777/787 or A330.
The C17 can takeoff/land from a short and/or dirt gravelled runway....
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5147 times:
Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 4): The C17 is a very unique aircraft that can not be replaced by the 777/787 or A330.
The C17 can takeoff/land from a short and/or dirt gravelled runway....
Yes, but the forthcoming debate will center on:
1. Does USAF have enough?
2. If not, can we really afford more, given other spending priorities?
3. Is there another "off the shelf" solution (A440M)? Doesn't have to be the optimum solution....
4. Will shutting down the C-17 line cause irrevocable harm to the U.S. aerospace industry? Every politico from California will be chanting "Yes" to this one.
[edited for spelling]
[Edited 2005-11-05 16:39:09]
[Edited 2005-11-05 16:39:41]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5076 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 5): 3. Is there another "off the shelf" solution (A440M)? Doesn't have to be the optimum solution....
The A400M isn't "off the shelf." It's a highly-specialized military aircraft just like the C-17. It could be bastardized as an "alternative," but the A400M is a different type of uplift and isn't a shopping-cart solution like commercial aircraft.
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 5): 4. Will shutting down the C-17 line cause irrevocable harm to the U.S. aerospace industry? Every politico from California will be chanting "Yes" to this one.
It would sure be the end of the legendary Long Beach assembly plant opened by Doulgas decades ago. With the end of the 717 now offically in sight, terminating the C-17 program would likely close LGB for good.
MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 16 Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5057 times:
Yeah, that pretty sums up the real question, does the USAF have enough? As far as an alterntative question, there is no replacement for the C17 as of right now, but, even if there was, you don't want to order another aircraft when you are trying to save money.
As somebody mentioned, when the C17 goes, Long Beach turns into a ghost town as far as aircraft, what a legacy Douglas leaves behind...
AnMCOSon From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5055 times:
Quoting Lumberton,reply=5: 4. Will shutting down the C-17 line cause irrevocable harm to the U.S. aerospace industry? Every politico from California will be chanting "Yes" to this one.
It would sure be the end of the legendary Long Beach assembly plant opened by Doulgas decades ago. With the end of the 717 now offically in sight, terminating the C-17 program would likely close LGB for good.
IF they end up terminating the line and they end up shutting the plant down, I would hope they would think about turning the place into an Aerospace museum, kind of like Wright-Patterson.
What the? Did everything just jump around? Or did my brain just stroke off there for a second?
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5047 times:
Quoting AnMCOSon (Reply 8): IF they end up terminating the line and they end up shutting the plant down, I would hope they would think about turning the place into an Aerospace museum, kind of like Wright-Patterson.
Much of the famous Douglas plant has already been torn down...... The C-17 line is in a building built for the C-17.....
Sonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5021 times:
Quoting SATL382G (Reply 9): Much of the famous Douglas plant has already been torn down...... The C-17 line is in a building built for the C-17.....
Most of the Douglas building seems to be still standing at the time the sat photo was taken this year but I'm sure they are mostly deserted. It will be sad when they do tear the buildings down. If you look at the sat photo you can see one of the C-17 maybe going through certification testing process outside the hanger.
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5019 times:
Quoting Sonic67 (Reply 10): Most of the Douglas building seems to be still standing at the time the sat photo was taken this year but I'm sure they are mostly deserted. It will be sad when they do tear the buildings down
The buildings on the airfield side of the avenue are gone with the exception of the admin tower and it may be gone by now. See the Boeing website I posted above. There is no date on your sat photo.
Also I have seen, but cannot now find, before and after photos on net. The buildings are gone.
Sonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5003 times:
Quoting SATL382G (Reply 11): Also I have seen, but cannot now find, before and after photos on net. The buildings are gone.
It's a shame but what are going to do? I'm sure after the house/condos what ever are built that the residents will complain about the noise of the airport.
Dan2002 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 2055 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4962 times:
Quoting Sonic67 (Reply 12): It's a shame but what are going to do? I'm sure after the house/condos what ever are built that the residents will complain about the noise of the airport.
Sonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4961 times:
Thanks DAN2002
that's is a big part of aviation and space history that will be lost.
Usnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 55 Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4880 times:
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4869 times:
Perhaps.... I've been following defense procurement for over 30 years and have observed that it is a LOT harder to end a program (especially one spread out in many states), than it is to start one. However, stark funding choices have to be made. No one thought the Army would lose the Commanche or the "Crusader" SP Artillery project, but they're history. Granted the C-17 program probably has a lot more support, but opponents can argue that we have sufficient quantities. I see this as a 50-50 proposition.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16260 posts, RR: 52 Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4860 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 16): No one thought the Army would lose the Commanche or the "Crusader" SP Artillery project
Those were no where near production or service, and they were already Billions over budget.
The C-17 is a proven work horse, they will order another 42. The next 42 C-17s can help straighten out some Guard and Reserve Units which have not been eliminated but lost strength in the latest BRAC.
I can see another 11 C-17s going to McGuire AFB to be operated by Active and Reserve components, with the current 13 C-17s stationed at McGuire this will bring their strength up to the former C-141 fleet of 4-5 years ago.
Other places I think they can put the next batch of C-17s, Hickam, Ramstein, Travis, Eielson or Elmendorf and possibly Dover. The remainder would be distrubuted to Guard Units.
Hickam is already getting C-17s, if they don't already have them they are in the build process. I've seen the ceremony pictures, keel laying or delivery ceremony I can't remember which.
I see little to no chance of a permanent end to C-17 production in Calif. in the near term.
1. Calif has a large voting block in the House, which controls the $$
2. Big election coming up in '08. No major candidate is going to want to be associated with losing a major Calif program and possibly losing the electoral votes there. Boeing will get a contract to build enough airframes to push the decision until after the election.
3. Any way you slice it 160 C-17s cannot replace 278 C-141s in the force structure. The last C-141 goes to the boneyard in May, and for all intents and purposes is out of the strategic picture now with only 6 or 7 still flying.
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4835 times:
Quoting Jaws707 (Reply 3): I have read that England is very happy with their 4 C17's. I know they have the A400 on order, but have they considered an additional order for at least a few more C17's? Are there any other countries that might consider this aircraft, I know it is overkill for most, but I am sure others could use it.
Britain has a supplementary order going through the processes, and wishes to buy outright the leased C-17 frames it already has.
My feelings regarding the A400M are documented elsewhere. I would rather see reliable jam today than dubious eurojam tomorrow.
AnMCOSon From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4736 times:
Quoting SATL382G (Reply 9): Much of the famous Douglas plant has already been torn down...... The C-17 line is in a building built for the C-17.....
I haven't been out to Long Beach for about 14-15 year's, last I knew of the plant was that it was making the MD-11. Wish they would have done something with the building instead of tearing it down.
Quoting Sonic67 (Reply 12): It's a shame but what are going to do? I'm sure after the house/condos what ever are built that the residents will complain about the noise of the airport.
Oh God, I hate those kind of people, I know what they're like. The housing development I live in is about a half mile, [as the crow fly's], from the Pittsburgh Intl airport, so the plane's fly over alot. It's annoying when your neighbor's try to get you to sign a petition to get them to not fly over.
I'm reminded of a quote from a certain Peanuts character....Oh Good Grief
What the? Did everything just jump around? Or did my brain just stroke off there for a second?
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4385 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4638 times:
It's hard to believe that the only major airlifter currently in production will have its life cut short because we already have met our fill at 180 airframes. So, we will effectively end all transport production as the C-130J and C-17 lines shut down. How is this supposed to make our military more fast and agile?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Echster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4609 times:
Hickam gets their C-17s starting in January 06. I've heard rumblings that they'd like to put another squadron of C-17s at RIV. Things have worked well there and they have plenty of room for more.
JarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4606 times:
Quoting CX747 (Reply 21): How is this supposed to make our military more fast and agile?
It doesn't. As usual, Congress will put short-term image improvements before long-term benefits, especially in an election year...
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4535 times:
Quoting CX747 (Reply 21): It's hard to believe that the only major airlifter currently in production will have its life cut short because we already have met our fill at 180 airframes. So, we will effectively end all transport production as the C-130J and C-17 lines shut down. How is this supposed to make our military more fast and agile?
Into the realms of possibility now, but there are theories that Lockheed is developing a C-130 successor aircraft under 'grey' project status.
I would be interested if anyone else has thoughts or links on this, but there has been something of a buzz amongst black project spotters for some time now about a lifter of the capability of the C-130/C-17 being put together. The grey bit comes in because the new generation of transporter aircraft would use some stealth technology and experience to increase its survival in battlefield or compromised airspace scenarios.
25 STT757: Does someone have a complete list of where C-17s are currently based, and who else are slated to receive C-17s?.. Also fleet strengths. So far I know
26 CX747: I have also read about certain grey projects, but until I see those projects in production, the C-17 and C-130 need to stay!
27 CTR: The only publicized replacement for the C-17 and C-130 on the horizon is the JHL. This will be a sea base support vertical lift aircraft bigger than t
28 WhiteHatter: This was definitely a Lockheed project, so it would not be the same as the JHL. Lockheed also came up with a radical design for the tanker contract wh
29 Venus6971: They also had and won a tanker contract back in the 50's with the USAF but Boeing delivered some KC-135's as temporary fill in until Lockheed had the
30 WhiteHatter: I've looked through the Aerofiles lists and can't find anything from the 1950s in the Lockheed product designator lists. They list projects there as w
31 Galaxy5007: Hickam is next to get C-17s. They will get 8. Travis will then get 13 C-17s. McChord will get one more brand new one. Then Dover will get 13 C-17s. At
32 Venus6971: Does anyone know about the one that got tore up in Bagram, talked to a reserve crew out of Charleston the other night, they told me it took 11 stops f
33 Galaxy5007: 01-0196 is at Long beach getting repaired. thats all I know.
34 Lumberton: Well, the politics have started....From this article: Talent amendment keeps Boeing C-17 line open in St. Louis
35 ERAUMcDlover: SO am I to understand that Mcchord and Charleston are losing their C-17s? All of them? or what? and if so, what will be stationed at Mcchord and Charl
36 Bennett123: Liberal Don Rumsfeld?. How do come to that conclusion.
37 Galaxy5007: McChord and Charleston isn't losing their C-17s. They are just giving a couple of them up. They don't need 56(charleston) or 51(Mcchord) to run the b
38 AeroWeanie: I've seen one drawing of it somewhere in a book. The DoD cancelled it after Boeing demonstrated a boom on the 367-80.
40 DL021: It looks like the Senate has made a deal to keep the next order for 40 airframes intact. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...BOEING-AIRCRAFT.xml&ar
41 CX747: I never thought I would say this, but thank God for the Senate!!!! IF this additional order for 42 aircraft occurs, where will these birds be statione
42 STT757: I would think they would split the order like this.. Two 13 aircraft squadrons and two 8 aircraft squadrons. 13 aircraft for McGuire, total 26. 13 air
43 C17loadmstr: I've only seen delivery locations for the first 180 so at this point, who really knows. I've heard that Altus may be opening up a second training squa
44 Galaxy5007: I almost doubt that the AF will buy any more 17s...no need for more than the 180 currently planned. And if they did buy them, they wouldn't go to Marc
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, 
Don't worry, Barbara. You won't have to face the voters for 4 more years.
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
