Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough  
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9567 times:

Boeing is supposed to be discussing the future C-17B at the Farnborough Air Show this year. Hasn't the Air Force already said it's not interested in the airplane and didn't Boeing make a pitch to the US Army to get them interested enough to try to put pressure on the Air Force to buy the plane?

Can Boeing really expect to sell an airplane the Air Force has already said it doesn't need?

I understand the improvements, as described in a proposal about two years old now, include higher power engines, a middle main landing gear and some flight control changes to allow the airplane to operated with heavier loads.


Dare to dream; dream big!
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9531 times:

In a Wall Street Journal article from July 19, 2006, BIDS stated that the C-17B would be able to operate from sandy beaches. Quite an improvement in operating capability.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineSonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9465 times:

They are going to make the presentation on July 17. They must have some hope of a sale if they are going to go through all the trouble.

Link to schedule :
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...story/07-03-2008/0004843475&EDATE=


User currently offlineAlien From Romania, joined Oct 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9451 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 1):
They must have some hope of a sale if they are going to go through all the trouble.

The C-5A fleet is not going to be modernized. At some point they will have to be replaced. Perhaps a run of 60 - 70 C-17Bs would fit the bill.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9437 times:



Quoting Alien (Reply 3):
The C-5A fleet is not going to be modernized. At some point they will have to be replaced. Perhaps a run of 60 - 70 C-17Bs would fit the bill.

No doubt the C-17B would be an improvement over the C-17A, but I'm not sure it would be enough of an improvement to replace the C-5 Galaxy. My gut feeling is that you're going to need an airplane as big as the C-5 to replace it.

Some time ago, I don't recall the date or year, there was talk of a stretched C-17 and consideration given to the possiblity it might be a suitable C-5 replacement. I haven't seen anything said about that since and suspect that idea was put to rest.

Too, the Air Force doesn't seem to be in any hurry to replace the C-5, though it seems interested, it appears, in supplementing what C-17s it has. Whether the USAF will shell out coins for an improved C-17 remains to be seen.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9435 times:

I hope they will build the plane. The C5 are getting old and the upgrade is really expensive.
It is maybe a good addition for European Air Forces on top of the A400. Right now everybody is relying on An 124s and they are also not the newest anymore.
With Antonov about to launch a second generation An 124 the very large freighter market really becomes interesting as more countries have a need for such aircraft.
I hope NATO will buy some C17Bs.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineJackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9398 times:

C-130s can't carry FCS vehicles.

In today's expeditionary world, the USAF needs an expeditionary airlifter, and that means the C-17. The proposed B-model represents an optimised expeditionary C-17. Buying it should be a no-brainer, but unfortunately the USAF's procurement folk have often demonstrated that they aren't guided by good sense or logic.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12063 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 9231 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter):
Can Boeing really expect to sell an airplane the Air Force has already said it doesn't need?

Why not, remember, the USAF did not want to buy the last 120 A-10As built. They said they didn't want or need them.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 6):
Buying it should be a no-brainer, but unfortunately the USAF's procurement folk have often demonstrated that they aren't guided by good sense or logic.

Isn't that the truth?  duck   duck   duck 


User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1764 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8949 times:

The AF didn't want V-22s either. Apparently, they shy away from anything that might make them look like they exist to support the Army. That probably has more to do with the recent purge that the nuke foulups.
I don't know about sandy beaches, but a C-17 that could land on the kind of desert and lakebed surfaces the C-130 can would be very valueable for ground support. It's kind of hard to get a division or heavy tanks somewhere fast if you need an improved strip, and the nearest is 400 miles away.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8643 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8932 times:



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 6):
In today's expeditionary world, the USAF needs an expeditionary airlifter, and that means the C-17.

It is why the USAF has also gone to Airbus to talk to them over the A400M, it could carry them, and land in places where the C17 could not.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8891 times:

Maybe Boeing could line up a lobby firm, a media agency amd some congress members to tell the USAF what it really should need..  duck 

User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8890 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
Maybe Boeing could line up a lobby firm, a media agency amd some congress members to tell the USAF what it really should need..

It worked for McCain and EADS....


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13046 posts, RR: 78
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8873 times:



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 6):
C-130s can't carry FCS vehicles.

In today's expeditionary world, the USAF needs an expeditionary airlifter, and that means the C-17. The proposed B-model represents an optimised expeditionary C-17. Buying it should be a no-brainer, but unfortunately the USAF's procurement folk have often demonstrated that they aren't guided by good sense or logic.

The same limitation has corrupted further, the whole already convoluted, paperwork mountain FRES for the British Army too.
(FRES - 'Future Rapid Effects System', for god's sake, who comes up with these titles?)
Then again FRES is a huge armoured turd waiting to be....well....excreted.
Why not do to the CVR(T) series of vehicles FRES is due to replace, as has happened with the FV432 to 'Boxer' update,new engines, transmissions, comms etc, these vehicles have always been C-130 transportable.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12063 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8727 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 9):
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 6):
In today's expeditionary world, the USAF needs an expeditionary airlifter, and that means the C-17.

It is why the USAF has also gone to Airbus to talk to them over the A400M, it could carry them, and land in places where the C17 could not.

Actually, both the C-5 and C-17 were designed, and demonstrated to land/take-off on "unprepared surfaces". The USAF stays away from using this capability because of concern of FOD to the turbofan engines. A C-5 did demonstrate landing in some 10" (280mm) of wet snow at the former Griffiss AFB, NY (RME) in the mid 1980s. It landed in the loose unpacked snow next to the runway, then taxied onto the plowed runway through the plowed snow wind-row. The C-17 demonstrated a capability to land and take off on desert sand at Edwards AFB, CA (EDW) during its flight testing in the 1990s. OTOH, the C-130 does this almost daily, the A-400M, having a similar configueration should have no problems, like the C-130. I am sure the A-400M will also successfully demonstrate this capability (EADS has advertised this as a selling point). Whether any customer actually uses it is a different decision.

Quoting GDB (Reply 12):
Then again FRES is a huge armoured turd waiting to be....well....excreted.

 yuck 


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8643 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8676 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
OTOH, the C-130 does this almost daily, the A-400M, having a similar configueration should have no problems, like the C-130.

CN-235/239 C-295 all that that sort of capability.

The C-17 & C-5 can be more limited at times by the availability of K loaders, than by the surface.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 8632 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
The C-17 & C-5 can be more limited at times by the availability of K loaders, than by the surface.

Having operated & managed k-loaders for the better part of my air force career I believe I'm in a position to tell you this: If there's no prepared surface k-loaders are 95% useless. All terrain forklifts and combat offloads will be the order of the day. NGSLs and tac loaders are a little better in the dirt than a k-loader but if I can only have one piece of equipment (which is sometimes the case) it will be a AT forklift.

Further, I'll note that the Russians have an excellent capability to offload in the dirt and they have no k-loaders (or their equivalent). They just use the onboard crane to lift cargo on to the back of truck.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12063 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8415 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
OTOH, the C-130 does this almost daily, the A-400M, having a similar configueration should have no problems, like the C-130.

CN-235/239 C-295 all that that sort of capability.

The C-17 & C-5 can be more limited at times by the availability of K loaders, than by the surface.

That is correct, for the most part. Please see below.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 15):
Having operated & managed k-loaders for the better part of my air force career I believe I'm in a position to tell you this: If there's no prepared surface k-loaders are 95% useless. All terrain forklifts and combat offloads will be the order of the day. NGSLs and tac loaders are a little better in the dirt than a k-loader but if I can only have one piece of equipment (which is sometimes the case) it will be a AT forklift.

Don't forget about RO-RO (Roll on-Roll off) cargo, or drive on, drive off for vehicles. I've scene this don't from C-130s. Other than that, ZANL188 is correct, combat offloads ( Army or marines offloading by hand). Of course there is also LAPES.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAPES

LAPES is an impressive manuver with the C-130. With the bigger A-400M, it could be even more impressive. Of course, those tests, if EADS is tasked to do them, are way down the road from now. I would guess the French of British will try it soon after they get their airplanes. Both do LAPES now with C-130s or C-160s.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8643 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8352 times:



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 15):

What you are saying is correct, but for strategic loads like helicopters etc it is very difficult to unload without something like a K-loader, even the alternative methods you listed.

I remember that the RAF flew submarine rescue gear into Russia, they were unable to unload the C17 as no K loader was available, and the fork lifts at the base could not handle the load, or fit in the space under the tail. They had to wait until the USAF flew in another C17 that had carried a K loader to unload their aircraft before they could start saving some people in a downed Russian sub.

One of the selling points of the A400M is the floor they have designed to assist loading/unloading, it is unlike anything else out there.

At the moment there is over 3000 medium sized transport aircraft out there (C130, C160, AN-12. IL-76/78), a lot of them are coming up for replacement, I see a rosy future for the A400M even if it only gets 20-25% of the market.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):

Very true, a lot of loads however do not have a roll on roll off capability, and too fragile to air drop.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
Don't forget about RO-RO (Roll on-Roll off) cargo, or drive on, drive off for vehicles.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 17):
What you are saying is correct, but for strategic loads like helicopters etc it is very difficult to unload without something like a K-loader, even the alternative methods you listed.

You don't need k-loaders for rolling stock (RO-RO is a sealift term, not airlift) like vehicles or helos. If it's on wheels it'll get driven or winched off.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8643 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8262 times:



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 18):

What about the OH-58, i.e a helicopter secured to married pallet ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12063 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8091 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 17):
At the moment there is over 3000 medium sized transport aircraft out there (C130, C160, AN-12. IL-76/78), a lot of them are coming up for replacement, I see a rosy future for the A400M even if it only gets 20-25% of the market.

Great point, The A-400M does have a chance to get their share of these replacment orders.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7972 times:

Best plan would be to order up some C-17Bs, and sell some of the older C-17s to countries that cant afford new C-17s, or even sell some to the private sector and get an appetite for some BC-17s going. USAF gets better C-17Bs, and other countries get C-17s. I bet a used market for C-17s would make the A400 crowd nervous!

User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7965 times:



Quoting Oroka (Reply 21):
Best plan would be to order up some C-17Bs, and sell some of the older C-17s to countries that cant afford new C-17s, or even sell some to the private sector and get an appetite for some BC-17s going. USAF gets better C-17Bs, and other countries get C-17s. I bet a used market for C-17s would make the A400 crowd nervous!

I agree!


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7910 times:



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 22):
I bet a used market for C-17s would make the A400 crowd nervous!

I agree!

To be honest I'm not sure who is more nervous. EADS over second hand C17s or Boeing over the A400M.

What do You think?  Yeah sure

The C17B could be a good aircraft. I see 1 possible customer. That customer is budget strapped and has been "helped" by politics to buy more C-17s. I think a priority would be to give the C-17 a boost in range & cut the price.


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7878 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 23):
The C17B could be a good aircraft. I see 1 possible customer. That customer is budget strapped and has been "helped" by politics to buy more C-17s. I think a priority would be to give the C-17 a boost in range & cut the price.

Why?

The C-17 has more range and can carry more than 2x as much cargo as the A400. The C-17's price is only 53% more expensive ($240 million vs $157 million) per copy and is available very soon. We still don't know exactly when the A400 will be ready or what the final price will be. There are numerous cost overruns associated with the delays that will be added on to the final price of the A400.

There is not question of if the C-17B "could be a good aircraft." The C-17 has proved itself through years of flying that it is one of the best aircraft for the mission out there. The Air Force loves the C-17, so there is no political arm twisting going on to force them to buy it. There simply isn't enough money to go around for them to buy everything they want. The Air Force would rather lobby congress to get more F-22s, F-35s, etc. Both the Air Force and Congress know how important and useful the C-17 is, so every year they always come through and buy more. Small purchases are easier to get approved then big purchases, but just because they are small doesn't mean everyone involved doesn't understand how important the C-17 is. That is just how the system works. It might take awhile, but we'll eventually end up with 250 C-17s.


25 KC135TopBoom : Keesje, What do you think of EADS buying some C-17s to carry A-380 and A-400 production sub-assemblies? It wouldn't be the first time a Boeing flew A
26 Oroka : I would say it is Lock-mart that is the most worried... but wtf did they expect. Eventually someone was going to build something bigger and better (s
27 Nomadd22 : I think the basic C-130 price is around $68 million this year. $12 million more for the J. I'm not sure if the builders are too worry about competiti
28 Zeke : Depends on the C-130, the ones with the A400M capabilities are well over 100 million, and even over 150 million,.
29 KC135TopBoom : Is that the price for the C-130J, and C-130J-30? What is the current price of the A-400M, and what do you think the price of a C-17B will be (I know
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough
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...
European ATV To Launch Tomorrow At 403GMT posted Sat Mar 8 2008 06:25:27 by Moo
Boeing To End C-17 Production posted Fri Mar 2 2007 21:19:41 by Slz396
E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07 posted Fri Feb 2 2007 14:27:17 by NYC777
Boeing To Begin Ground Testing X48B posted Mon Oct 30 2006 10:11:16 by DEVILFISH
Boeing To Shut Down C-17 Line.... posted Fri Aug 18 2006 18:09:49 by AirRyan
CNN V-22 At Farnborough Video... posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:25:52 by AirRyan
Why No KC-30 At Farnborough? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 20:14:36 by Solnabo
Boeing Set To Extend C-17 Production At Own Risk posted Mon Jun 18 2007 03:34:00 by T773ER
NG And Usaf Ask GAO To Dismiss Boeing Protest... posted Thu Mar 27 2008 18:16:12 by AirRyan
Boeing Has Nothing To Lose Protesting KC767 Loss posted Mon Mar 10 2008 02:58:48 by BCAL

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format