DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3913 times:
Qoute
The Air Force last week for the first time requested additional C-17s beyond the 180 Boeing is providing under a $36 billion contract. The company has delivered 147 of the jets, which have ferried troops to the Iraq war and flown humanitarian aid to tsunami victims.
At $200 million per plane, the C-17 contract accounts for about $3 billion a year in revenue, or about 10 percent of Boeing's defense business in 2005. Boeing was sending 150 of its C-17 suppliers to Capitol Hill Wednesday to lobby for additional funding in the defense budget for C-17s. In December, the Air Force said it didn't need any more of the cargo jets.
"I think there will be more produced than the 180 that have been ordered," Albaugh, 55, said in an interview Tuesday. "Whatever the customer wants we'll support, and right now we are encouraged by the change in tone up on the Hill."
Perhaps the program will go on for a longer time. Sounds to me like the C-17 may become the next C-130 with it's versatility, dependability aand potential length of production.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4385 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3860 times:
In another post, there was talk that 20 C-17s are being used as in theater airlifters in Iraq/Afghanistan. They don't fly long haul missions and are actually home based in the desert. They are being used like C-130s are. With that being said, the aicraft's versatility and capabilities are being greatly shown. Supposedly the Air Force is asking for 20 more airframes to bring their total to 200. That along with a order for 4 airframes by Australia, 1 more for Britain and possibly 2 for Sweden and 15-20 for Nato should more than fill the US's needs along with their allies. Once you solve one problem (Air Lift), then you start on the next (Tankers).
"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 2, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3828 times:
No link so attribution given after editing out Navy boat buying:
Defense Today
March 9, 2006
England: More C-17s May Be Bought; Tanker/Transport Planes Needed Now
By Dave Ahearn
The Air Force may have to buy more than the 180 C-17 transport planes now envisioned because C-17s are wearing out rapidly in the war, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England told senators.
The adjustment might be made in the budget for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2008. The number of extra C-17s is likely to be modest, perhaps on the order of 10 planes, England later told Defense Today.
The Air Force is unlikely to drop or reduce a program to modernize C-5 transport planes in favor of buying still more C-17 transports from the Boeing Co., England told key senators. Gen. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, had mentioned such a C-17/C-5 tradeoff. Rather, the Air Force should move quickly to procure new aerial refueling tanker planes that also would provide transport capabilities, England told the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC).
The Air Force is likely to obtain the tanker planes either from Boeing or from European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. unit Airbus Industrie.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3721 times:
Don't we still have a significant and untapped airlift capability in the CRAF?
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16252 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3616 times:
US Air Forces Europe needs a C-17 Squadron.
C-17s would help USAFE’s air mobility business
Quote: by Louis A. Arana-Barradas
Air Force Print News
3/21/2006 - RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AFPN) -- As the need grows for more Air Force transports to move cargo and troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. Air Forces in Europe is feeling the pinch.
Today, most Air Force airlift missions support military operations in the two countries, said Col. Phil Bossert, commander of 16th Air Force’s air mobility operations control center at this busy airlift hub.
Most missions executed through the U.S. Central Command Air Forces combined air operations center are air mobility missions, he said. The airlift missions “normally outnumber kinetic missions -- sometimes by as much as two to one.”
“This is very much a mobility war,” he said. “Airlift is definitely big business.”
But airlift is big business at Ramstein, too. USAFE, which has its headquarters here, has its own growing airlift needs as it transforms and expands its operations south and east. The colonel said it needs a squadron of new transport aircraft to keep pace with its airlift requirements.
“No doubt about it, we need C-17 (Globemaster IIIs),” he said. The Globemasters would boost the command’s fleet of airlift aircraft.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3483 times:
If the USAF gets 10-20 more C-17s and another 40-80 F-22s, Congress will not buy them a new tanker. USAF will have to re-engine the KC-135Es.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4385 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3445 times:
Actually, I think that the USAF is going to get another 20 C-17s. There seems to be alot of PR going on for a smaller purchase. This would bring the C-17 fleet up to 200 aircraft. With that, they would then turn their attention to the replacement tanker.
An additional purchase of 20 C-17s though is not going to take away funds from any tanker or Raptor puchase. It seems that the 20 additional -17s are going to be funded through a budget add on. Therefore, they are not being paid out of any fiscal year budget plan. The need for an additional 20 C-17s was made by an AF general during a congressional hearing. He described how currently, 20 C-17s are kept in theater and are being used up at an alarming rate.
I also don't see the money drying up if the Air Force gets an additional 40-80 Raptors. Production of the Raptor is being looked at as a matter of national security. If the USAF stops production to soon, there will be a production gap and lose of talent in the fighter manufacturing world. It is not actually AF needs that are pushing for an additional 40-80 Raptors but manufacturing. The AF is being smart though and just playing along. 180 Raptors is not enough and 260 would fullfill fleet needs.
With the new RAND study out on tankers, I don't forsee the KC-135s getting re-engined. To the best of my knowledge that idea was scrapped, crossed out and burned. Both the C-17 purchase and F-22 purchase are being looked at as necessary items. In my opinion they will be paid for even if additional funding is necessary. The tanker purchase is going to be in the normal budget and therefore, not affected by the -17 or -22 buy.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16252 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3417 times:
42 additional C-17s, two Active Duty squadrons of 13 aircraft each and two Reserve/Guard Squadrons of 8 aircraft each.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4385 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3408 times:
IF an additional 42 airframes are ordered, am I correct in thinking that McGuire and Travis will receive the active duty squadrons? I don't know why but thats where my brain keeps going. I have no clue as to where the two Reserve squadrons would go.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16252 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3399 times:
Quote: C-17 news good for Boeing
What a difference a couple of months can make. That accounts for renewed C-17 optimism among Boeing officials in Macon and in Long Beach, Calif.
Additional buys of the Air Force's newest cargo aircraft appear almost certain today as military leaders grapple with the rigors of the war on terror.
That's good news for a company work force of 6,500, including about 500 at Boeing Macon, and a vast array of parts suppliers in 42 states, including Georgia.
Just last December, Navy Adm. Edmund Giambastiani Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the current programmed buy of 180 C-17s was sufficient for a "very capable and adequate" airlift fleet. With only 32 aircraft yet to be delivered, that signaled production of the four-engined jet essentially would grind to a halt by the latter part of 2007.
That scenario apparently is changing.
Im optimistic with this part:
Quote: How many additional aircraft may be ordered over the next several years remains uncertain. Air Mobility Command leaders have said at least 42 more C-17s are required. Boeing - at the request of the Air Force - has provided cost information for up to 60 additional aircraft.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4385 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3392 times:
That is good news! I would love to see an additional squadron based out of Travis. Not that I'm trying to set the odds in my favor of flying out of there!!!
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16252 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3389 times:
Im not sure Travis could handle another squadron of C-17s, they are making room for the 13 scheduled to be delivered by transfering some C-5s. McGuire can definetly handle an additional 13 C-13s, before they were retired McGuire operated 26 C-141s.
As stated in the Air Force news article I posted further up the thread US Air Forces Europe needs a squadron of C-17s at Ramstein to supplant their C-130E's.
Here's my take on where to base the additional 42 C-17s;
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3350 times:
Perhaps Boeing should try to sell the additional 42-60 C-17A as a streched version and call it the C-17B?
Quote: Preliminary discussions have already taken place between Defence Department and U.S. military officials on whether Canada could get speedy access to some of the Boeing C-17s already on order to the U.S. military, sources say."We know that officials have spoken," a defence industry source said.
The U.S. government has made it known through its embassy in Ottawa that it would facilitate the purchase, the source said.
Good news for Boeing; bad news for Lockheed & RR if it happens.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 3189 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 9): Im optimistic with this part:
Quote:How many additional aircraft may be ordered over the next several years remains uncertain. Air Mobility Command leaders have said at least 42 more C-17s are required. Boeing - at the request of the Air Force - has provided cost information for up to 60 additional aircraft.
That number "42" has been floated around for several years. They must have gone to quite an effort to establish that as the exact number they still want.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 3166 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 13): Globe and Mail reporting that Canada is considering the C-17 in lieu of more tac airlift. Not a new revelation, but another media source.
Hillier's aircraft plan in doubt
Ottawa considers buying long-range C-17s, but top general favours short-haul Hercules
Since when did the McDD C-17 become "lonig-ranged?"
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2997 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 16): Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
Since when did the McDD C-17 become "lonig-ranged?"
Well, from the 72nd (I think) C-17, they have additional fuel tankage. I've heard of these referred to as "C-17ER," but it's not official.
So they only need two tanker trips to get across the pond now instead of three? Poor range was what killed McDD begining with their MD-11 and if the USAF didn't have hundreds of refueling tankers the C-17 would be a short-ranged failure as well. Too bad DL couldn't have fit a refueling recepticle on their MD-11's and entered into an agreement with the USAF, than maybe McDD wouldn't have lost the many MD-11 orders that they did and they wouldn't be part of Boeing now? I still cringe when I see Boeing lay claim to the F-15 and F-4.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
