AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1610 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3147 times:
I believe Boeing owns the factory in Long Beach. The moment the last C-17 rolls out the door, the bulldozers will be standing by so that they can clear the land and sell it. In contrast, the Lockheed plant in Marietta is government owned, so it was still there when the C-5 line reopened (it had been busy building C-130s and stretching C-141s). Additionally, the government had paid Lockheed to store the tooling for the C-5. I doubt if the US government will pay to have the C-17 tooling stored.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3134 times:
Yes, Boeing does own the LB plant, it is not a USAF plant. Boeing can do what ever they want to with it after the C-17A production ends. But, I believe they have to store the C-17 tooling until it is released by the USAF. IIRC, the old GD still had the F/FB-111 tooling stored at the Fort Worth plant (before they were bought out by Lockheed Martin) until it was released for scrapping in the late 1990s.
Additionally, Boeing had to keep the C/KC-135 tooling until after the B-707/E-3/E-6 production line closed in the early 1990s.
CF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3048 times:
I dont think you will see the C17 production ending anytime soon. To my knowledge...I dont think there are any other aircraft matching its performance / or competing with its mission. I wouldn't throw the C130 or A400 in its category seeing as how the C-17 is made to withstand a great amount of weight.... and can land in the same distance as a C-130 / A400 so, one does have a greater advantage.... but then again the C-130 does things the C-17 cannot do... so its like an eye for an eye
Seefivein From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2984 times:
There were suppose to be a run of C5's produced all in the same run..budget cuts, economy, new presidents change all orders for all aircraft.
The wing support problem was a major factor to hold off on the first run of C5'As - the C5B's (from the 80's) If I remember right started when Carter was still in. Carter and Reagan both saw first hand how important to move goods and people in troubled country's and saw the need for more haulers like the C5's.
The tooling was there to go ahead and make more C5B's and the funding went out for I think the C17 program which some of the group might correct me that McDonnell Douglas (which Boeing bought and closed) has a major part in the design of the hauler.
Boeing's engine's made a huge difference in the C17,,really quite compared to what was out there and it could handle a large load.
The C5's are owned only by the Air force, that was deal back in the 60's and has not changed.
NASA did want to use a few C5's to haul the shuttle -but- NASA could NOT own the birds and therefore went for 747's which they own.
The 2 C5C's are still owned by the Air Force - some pulling by some high ranking officials are the reason that they were changed over to help haul cargo containers for NASA.
The way you vote has a outcome as to what Aircraft is made or not made.