Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
22 C-17s And Lots Of Other Goodies!  
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4804 times:

President signs 2007 Defense Authorization Act

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

10/18/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The fiscal 2007 National Defense Authorization Act provides more than $530 billion to maintain the military in the shape it must be to win the war on terrorism.

President Bush signed the bill, officially called the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, during a small ceremony in the Oval Office Oct. 17.

Senator Warner is Virginia's senior senator and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The act provides $462.8 billion in budget authority for the Defense Department. Senate and House conferees added the $70 billion defense supplemental budget request to the act, so overall, the act authorizes $532.8 billion for fiscal 2007.

The act sets aside $4.4 billion for 22 C-17 Globemaster III airlifters, $1.4 billion for procurement of 14 Marine V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and $1.5 billion for 43 MH-60R/S helicopters.

The act authorizes $841 million for 122 Stryker combat vehicles, including $41.5 million to replace combat losses. The act also provides $1.4 billion for 20 F-22 Raptor fighters and reduced funding for the F-35 Lightning II fighter due to schedule delays.

The $70 billion supplemental provision covers the cost of ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa, as well as other expenses affiliated with the war on terrorism. The supplemental funding also provides $23.8 billion to help "reset" Army and Marine Corps equipment, which is wearing out faster than originally planned because of the war.

The supplemental measure further provides $2.1 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Task Force, $1.7 billion to train and equip Iraqi security forces and $1.5 billion to help train and equip Afghan security forces.

The authorization act provides a 2.2 percent pay raise for American servicemembers, effective Jan. 1. It continues the Army at its end-strength of 512,400 and raises the Marine Corps end-strength to 180,000. The Army National Guard end strength is set at 350,000.

The act authorizes the expansion of eligibility for the Tricare health care program to all members of the Selected Reserve while in a non-active-duty status and their families. Payment is set at 28 percent of the premium amount established by DOD. The act also prohibits any increase in Tricare Prime and Tricare Select Reserve in fiscal 2007.

The act authorizes $36.6 billion for operations and maintenance costs, including $700 million for body armor and $149.5 million for ammunition.

The act authorizes construction of seven warships, including the next-generation destroyer and the amphibious assault replacement ship. The act also provides $794 million in advance procurement authority for the next generation aircraft carrier, the CVN-21.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

What really surprised me was the C-17s going up from 10/11 to 22. Now where will they go....

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7408 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4777 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Thread starter):
Now where will they go....

Probably to replace some of the C-5A's in the inventory



Made from jets!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4743 times:

There is no mention of the KC-X project? I would think initial funding would have been needed in the FY-07 budget, since USAF wanted to sign a contract next summer.

Great news for the C-17s, we sure need them. Are the 20 F-22s an accelerated number being built? I thought the original request was for 14 aircraft. Or are these the first 6 to be built beyond the initially approved 183 F-22s?


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4599 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 1):
Probably to replace some of the C-5A's in the inventory

You'd need two C-17s to replace 1 C-5. With all the re-basing going on with the C-5s, I seriously doubt they are going to retire anymore of the A models until 2045, unless they decide not to convert them to C-5Ms which will be evaluated again in 2014 after the B models are completed.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Are the 20 F-22s an accelerated number being built

From what I understand, its an addition to the original 183, making the total 203.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
There is no mention of the KC-X project?

The KC-X procurment won't begin in FY 07, which is the reasoning behind no funding or mention of the tankers. The C-17s for example that are being built today, were funded back in FY 02, where as they had planned it out this far. Whenever the tanker bid wins, and the company that provides the tankers gives a date to expect first delivery, then the aircraft will get funded from the FY that the first plane is scheduled to be delivered (Say first tanker is due out in 2010, FY10 would fund the tankers from CY 2010-2014 or so, as an approximation)


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4592 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 1):
Probably to replace some of the C-5A's in the inventory

There were 285 C-141s built. Even though the C-17A carries more (and thus a 1:1 replacement isn't necessary), they're probably not there yet.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4590 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 3):
From what I understand, its an addition to the original 183, making the total 203.

This is nice to see, I think it may continue to creep up every budget with an extra 15-20 or so with a final number closer to hopefully 260.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Thread starter):
The act sets aside $4.4 billion for 22 C-17 Globemaster III airlifters

Are these straight USAF purchases or are any of the Australian FMS purchase included in this number? I'm not sure on the FMS procedure and US defence budgets.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Thread starter):
$1.4 billion for procurement of 14 Marine V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft

I love these aircraft but I sure hope the price goes down! 100 million a pop is alot of cash even with it's expanded capabilities.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4576 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Are the 20 F-22s an accelerated number being built?

F-22 was approved for multi-year funding. 20 aircraft a year for the next three years.


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7408 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4537 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 3):
You'd need two C-17s to replace 1 C-5. With all the re-basing going on with the C-5s, I seriously doubt they are going to retire anymore of the A models until 2045, unless they decide not to convert them to C-5Ms which will be evaluated again in 2014 after the B models are completed.

Well, with this DOD's way of thinking, you never know what they might have on their minds. I hope not. I have 9 years left in the reserves, and i'm hoping to get a crack at transferring over to be a loadmaster on them someday. Either with the AFRes or the ANG.

[Edited 2006-10-19 05:34:17]


Made from jets!
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4521 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 5):
Are these straight USAF purchases or are any of the Australian FMS purchase included in this number? I'm not sure on the FMS procedure and US defence budgets

Straight USAF; FMS sales have no affect on the US budget.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 7):
Well, with this DOD's way of thinking, you never know what they might have on their minds

Very true. Thats why I mentioned after the B-models get converted to M models, they'll end up re-evaluating the A-model feasability. Personally, you'd think they'd modernize a little of both, that way they get the max benefit out of the A-models. Seems to me, they are stalling with the As to see if any other major problems arise that would warrant scrapping.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 5):
This is nice to see, I think it may continue to creep up every budget with an extra 15-20 or so with a final number closer to hopefully 260.

I doubt we'll see that many in inventory. However, the rate the hours are being put on some of the older 17s, I wouldn't be suprised if more are made and delivered to active bases, while the older ones go to different reserve and guard units which typically don't fly nearly as much as the active duty bases do. I figured they'd make it to around 220-230 though. Ramstein sure could use a squadron of 17s, and rumors started floating around that Lackland wants a squadron now that most of their C-5s are going to end up being used for training after next years C-5 pilot school transfers from Altus. I don't see that happening, but you never know with the people in office right now....


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4447 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 8):
I doubt we'll see that many in inventory. However, the rate the hours are being put on some of the older 17s, I wouldn't be suprised if more are made and delivered to active bases, while the older ones go to different reserve and guard units which typically don't fly nearly as much as the active duty bases do. I figured they'd make it to around 220-230 though. Ramstein sure could use a squadron of 17s, and rumors started floating around that Lackland wants a squadron now that most of their C-5s are going to end up being used for training after next years C-5 pilot school transfers from Altus. I don't see that happening, but you never know with the people in office right now....

I was actually referring to the F-22 but I am interested in your thoughts on the C-17, do you really see a final number around the 220 mark? Maybe when Rumsfeld finally leaves the less glamorous necessary purchases of transformation might actually occur?

What will Boeing do with the tooling once the factory at Long Beach is closed? Is it mandatory to be kept in storage for a certain number of years?


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4426 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 9):
referring to the F-22

Yeah, I was tired, lol. I see 300 in the end myself. Once it proves itself in real world combat situations, congress will get on there knees and shoot money out there mouths as they plead for more.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 9):
C-17, do you really see a final number around the 220 mark?

With the utilization of the current fleet, yes, definately. The C-17 is a great asset to the USAF. No plane is perfect, and even the newest one thats only a week out of the factory has its problems, but in statistical average and MC rates, its the best cargo hauler around when it comes to being able to carry as much as it carries. With a new Congress stepping in, I see thoughts of the 17 program actually being reasonable and logical(instead of going on data thats 5 years old).

Quoting Ozair (Reply 9):
What will Boeing do with the tooling once the factory at Long Beach is closed? Is it mandatory to be kept in storage for a certain number of years?

That'd be up to Boeing. If someone pays for them to store the tooling, then they'll do so. If no one pays, I doubt they'll keep it. Boeing doesn't care for LB very much (too many memories of MD?), and they don't care if they shut it down after the 17s are done for good.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 3):
The KC-X procurment won't begin in FY 07, which is the reasoning behind no funding or mention of the tankers. The C-17s for example that are being built today, were funded back in FY 02, where as they had planned it out this far. Whenever the tanker bid wins, and the company that provides the tankers gives a date to expect first delivery, then the aircraft will get funded from the FY that the first plane is scheduled to be delivered (Say first tanker is due out in 2010, FY10 would fund the tankers from CY 2010-2014 or so, as an approximation)

Well, not really. There are long lead cost items to order before actual building begins. So, you should have scene some money budgeted for these items (engines, landing gear, etc.). Additionally, when the contract is signed (expected in FY-07), USAF must issue a check to pay for initial design work, long leads, and tooling costs.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 9):
What will Boeing do with the tooling once the factory at Long Beach is closed? Is



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 10):
That'd be up to Boeing. If someone pays for them to store the tooling, then they'll do so.

The tooling belongs to the USAF, not Boeing. USAF can pay Boeing to store it (they did this with the F/FB-111 tooling with GD, but after LM bought GD's aircraft division, USAF took the tooling), but will most ship it ofr storage at DM.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4140 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
The tooling belongs to the USAF, not Boeing. USAF can pay Boeing to store it (they did this with the F/FB-111 tooling with GD, but after LM bought GD's aircraft division, USAF took the tooling), but will most ship it ofr storage at DM.

What's DM? Is this the boneyard for tooling?

Does the USAF still have the FB-111 tooling or with no more in service has it been scrapped?

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 10):
With the utilization of the current fleet, yes, definately. The C-17 is a great asset to the USAF. No plane is perfect, and even the newest one thats only a week out of the factory has its problems, but in statistical average and MC rates, its the best cargo hauler around when it comes to being able to carry as much as it carries. With a new Congress stepping in, I see thoughts of the 17 program actually being reasonable and logical(instead of going on data thats 5 years old).

At the Richmond Air Show today my wife loved the C-17. There is a real mystique about the aircraft that captivates you.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4129 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 12):
Does the USAF still have the FB-111 tooling or with no more in service has it been scrapped?

Since the RAAF still flys the FB-111A (redsignated as the F-111G), I'm sure the RAAF made some deal to continue to keep the tooling. It would not cost much to keep it stored out in the desert in Davis Montain AFB, AZ (at the AMARC area).


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3967 times:

I guess Boeing is happy to have another 22 orders on the books but as I said on another thread I bet they are more than ready to shut down Long Beach and get all manufacturing out of California. As said before if they were being Built in St Louis or Wichita they probably would be making more money and would not be making so many squawks about shutting down the assembly line.
To all future C-17 customers you better get onboard with your order, the moment the last C-17 comes off the assembly line a bull-dozier will be behind it tearing down the factory to go condo.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3929 times:

The WSJ said a couple months back that the C-17A was programmed until 2009, and that in 2010, any airframes would be of the variety. Does this mean we'll be seeing that new variant?


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 3):
You'd need two C-17s to replace 1 C-5.

Don't look at it from a one-to-one comparison. The availability of the C-5 is so much less than that of a C-17 that, depending on the mission, one C-17 does in the same time period what 2 C-5's can do.



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3847 times:

As of now, you are right, but when they all get modernized and re-engined, then that comparison will be a better one.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 22 C-17s And Lots Of Other Goodies!
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...
WSJ: Nato Wants Airlift, And Lots Of It posted Mon Mar 6 2006 21:41:58 by N328KF
Photos And Video Of First SA Gripen posted Thu Sep 21 2006 01:13:58 by DEVILFISH
Speed And Altitude Of The ICBM? posted Fri Jun 23 2006 00:25:03 by Wardialer
F-22 Tailslide And Cobra posted Wed May 10 2006 09:07:42 by Sean1234
Drop Tanks And Battle Of B posted Tue Dec 28 2004 14:06:10 by Ba97
Pros And Cons Of Manned Vs. Unmannned. posted Mon Mar 3 2003 00:27:40 by CX747
Outstanding 360 View Of V-22 Pit In High Detail... posted Sun Jul 23 2006 07:50:37 by AirRyan
Video Of Ares I And V On Moon Mission.... posted Sun Jul 2 2006 21:52:36 by Boeing Nut
What's The Status Of The F-22? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 17:37:34 by AviationAddict
Formation Of Russian And Western Jets posted Fri Mar 24 2006 17:16:06 by Sabena340

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format