DAYflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:58 pm

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.

Link http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/262242_boeing09.html?source=rss
One Nation Under God
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:15 am

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
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:23 am

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.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:38 pm

Don't we still have a significant and untapped airlift capability in the CRAF?
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13176
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:59 am

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.

continued at..

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123017857
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:33 pm

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
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:54 am

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
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13176
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:56 am

42 additional C-17s, two Active Duty squadrons of 13 aircraft each and two Reserve/Guard Squadrons of 8 aircraft each.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:16 am

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
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13176
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:54 pm

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.

.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/...ounties/houston_peach/14182494.htm
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:03 pm

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
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13176
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:10 pm

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;

13 McGuire (total 26)
13 Ramstein
8 March ARB (total 16)
8 Niagara Falls JARB
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:22 pm

Perhaps Boeing should try to sell the additional 42-60 C-17A as a streched version and call it the C-17B?
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:23 pm

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


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".
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:00 pm

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:05 am

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?"  Smile
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:39 am

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.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17

Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:07 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Channex757, GloomyDe and 14 guests