ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:04 am

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!
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:08 am

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
sonic67
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:43 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:38 am

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=
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:32 am



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.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:08 am



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!
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:09 am

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
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:50 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:13 pm



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 
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:49 pm

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.
Anon
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9929
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:14 pm



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
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:27 pm



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....
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:27 pm

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 
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:27 am



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:50 pm



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 avatar
zeke
Posts: 9929
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:09 pm



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
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:19 pm



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:31 pm



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 avatar
zeke
Posts: 9929
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:32 pm



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
 
zanl188
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:51 pm



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 avatar
zeke
Posts: 9929
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:54 pm



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:00 pm



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.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:31 am

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!
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:48 am



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!
 
keesje
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:57 am



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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:04 pm



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.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:21 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 23):
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?

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 Airbus patrs around. EADS had a small fleet of C-97/B-377 Guppies/Super Guppies for a long time.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:34 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 23):
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?

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.

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 (same as the 747 and A380).

Only people who have anything to lose is EADS. I am sure that of alot of C-17s popped up at a good price, those A400s would't look quite so good.

IMO if the US wants to remain the premier world power, especially with China nipping thier heals, they need to upgrade thier capacities where reasonably possible. Subtract the price of a used C-17 off that of a C-17B, the trade-in is alot more palatable than just buying the C-17Bs outright.
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:25 pm



Quoting Oroka (Reply 26):
I would say it is Lock-mart that is the most worried...

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 competition.
Anon
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9929
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:31 pm



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 27):
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 competition.

Depends on the C-130, the ones with the A400M capabilities are well over 100 million, and even over 150 million,.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough

Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:09 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
Depends on the C-130, the ones with the A400M capabilities are well over 100 million, and even over 150 million,.

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 at this point it is at best a guess, since even Boeing doesn't know)?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mjoelnir, Zaf and 10 guests