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

Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:21 pm

The “FE,” for fuel efficient, would have a narrower fuselage by several feet than the aircraft now in production. It also would involve lightening of the structure through use of composites, says Tommy Dunehew, Boeing’s C-17 business development representative.

The goal is to meet the nominal Joint Future Theater Lift program. The concept "is fairly advanced," with the same engines, tails, and wing, Dunehew says.


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest



Some said the current C17/C130 combination is perfect and nothing inbetween is required.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6085
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:11 pm

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Some said the current C17/C130 combination is perfect and nothing inbetween is required.

Its all about business and getting what you can from the platforms you can offer. $$$$ talks.

I am guessing that it is aimed at taking customers from the A400M market space.

If customers have complained that the C17 is just more than they need perhaps a smaller version is just what is needed. And if they can bring it in for less than the $200million of its parent and it gives a whole new life to the line then it is a good idea.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:17 pm

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Some said the current C17/C130 combination is perfect and nothing inbetween is required.

It is, but I don't see any reason for the C-17FE. Most new military vehicles are getting bigger, not smaller or narrower. Going "several feet smaller" in width would put it around the size of the C-141 cargo compartment, but probibly not as long.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:00 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Going "several feet smaller" in width would put it around the size of the C-141 cargo compartment, but probibly not as long.

That was the impression I got too. The next question would be whether we'll see this new model of the C-17 stretched in years to come to meet airlift volume requirements. Flashbacks to the C-141B?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:18 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Most new military vehicles are getting bigger, not smaller or narrower.


Somewhat counter intuitively that may be a reason for offering a narrower C-17.
With vehicles and equipment getting larger it is getting more difficult to load them 2 abreast, most current memebers of the Pirhana LAV family would have trouble, certainly larger tracked units will only fit in single file. Perhaps a longer and narrower variant might suit some customers.
Not everyone wants to carry M1A1/2 around.(could get an M1A1/2 in a narrower C-17 but you wouldn't want to lighten the structure much!)

Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
SeJoWa
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:09 am

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Some said the current C17/C130 combination is perfect and nothing inbetween is required.

"Some" not including Boeing for obvious reasons.

I'm rather amazed that a new fuselage is being bandied about. I would have thought - apart from it being non-trivial and hence expensive - that the gains would be small because all the other major components would stay "wrong sized".
 
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:23 am

I think it might be feasible to un-M1A1/2 the C17. I understand the floor is very heavy and expensive because of it. Almost twice as heavy as a A400M. If you delete the MBT requirement, you can probably reduce OEW, increase efficiency and improve soft terrain/take-off performance. Big question is, can you also lower the price tag..

Australia 4 C-17, excluding support:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-to-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated-01971/
Support http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/topstories/5638.html

Canadas 4 C-17s:
“Canada First Defence Procurement – New Strategic & Tactical Airlift Fleets” notes that in addition to the C$4.9 billion program to replace its decaying CC-130 Hercules fleet of tactical transport aircraft, the new conservative government plans to spend C$ 1.8 billion (USD$ 1.6 billion) to buy strategic airlifters, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

Despite the A400M cost rises, they still don't come close to these price levels. Boeing challenge will be to make the C-17 really light, in everyway.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2175
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:35 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Boeing challenge will be to make the C-17 really light, in everyway.

The article noted that they will "lightening of the structure through use of composites". Perhaps the same barrel technique used on the 787.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:08 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Australia 4 C-17, excluding support:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-to-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated-01971/
Support http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/topstories/5638.html

Canadas 4 C-17s:
“Canada First Defence Procurement – New Strategic & Tactical Airlift Fleets” notes that in addition to the C$4.9 billion program to replace its decaying CC-130 Hercules fleet of tactical transport aircraft, the new conservative government plans to spend C$ 1.8 billion (USD$ 1.6 billion) to buy strategic airlifters, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

Despite the A400M cost rises, they still don't come close to these price levels. Boeing challenge will be to make the C-17 really light, in everyway.

Here we go again on the international price issue, again. Keesje, and others only talk about the A-400 costs only, but highlight the total costs of the C-17 with the "packages" countries buy. Again, Keesje, it is not just the airplane price, but it INCLUDES the spares, training, and maintenance support for XX years. For some countries, it also includes mission planning/scheduling packages, too. The SAAF canceled the A-400 because the price, which included the 'packages' balloned to over 700M Euros per airplane. That was BEFORE the new pricing agreement EADS and its EU customers are still talking about for the 'new' contracts.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Boeing challenge will be to make the C-17 really light, in everyway.

The article noted that they will "lightening of the structure through use of composites". Perhaps the same barrel technique used on the 787.

That could be, but I don't see any reason Boeing could not do that with the current size of the fuselage on the C-17. Both it and the B-787s are WBs.
 
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:23 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Again, Keesje, it is not just the airplane price, but it INCLUDES the spares, training, and maintenance support for XX years. For some countries, it also includes mission planning/scheduling packages, too.

Indeed, $1.6 B purchasing + $1.6B support for 4 aircraft / 20 yrs.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
the new conservative government plans to spend C$ 1.8 billion (USD$ 1.6 billion) to buy strategic airlifters, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.

$ 1.6 B purchasing for 4 C-17s sounds in line with other quotes I have seen.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The SAAF canceled the A-400 because the price, which included the 'packages' balloned to over 700M Euros per airplane.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
the new conservative government plans to spend C$ 1.8 billion (USD$ 1.6 billion) to buy strategic airlifters, plus $1.6 billion anticipated for 20 years of in-service support.


Here we go again on the seemingly unerasable non -ense that folks like to surround the A400M with.

Last October, the then CEO of the country’s defence acquisition, sales and research and development agency Armscor, Sipho Thomo, told the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Defence that the acquisition costs for South Africa for all eight A400Ms had soared from R17-billion to R47-billion – an increase of R30-billion (roughly €2,8-billion) for South Africa alone. 
Airbus then, and since, has vehemently denied this, at that time stating that “the price tag which has been attributed to Armscor’s CEO, Mr Sipho Thomo, is wildly exaggerated.”
...
A crude calculation, assum-ing the cost increase is the same for each and every aeroplane, would mean the programme, if South Africa were still a member, would have cost this country about another €19,5-million or roughly R200-million for each A400M, or something like €156-million, or R1,6-billion in total – a far cry from Thomo’s R30-billion figure.

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...he-ending-of-a400m-deal-2010-03-26

SAA A400M would probably cost around $ 190 million including prices rises (of which EADS said would not be forwarded to export customers! ). Roughly half of what Australia paid for their C-17, years ago.

Anybody claiming the A400M is 12 tonnes overweight btw?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:16 am

Quoting keesje (Reply 9):
Here we go again on the seemingly unerasable non -ense that folks like to surround the A400M with.

Last October, the then CEO of the country’s defence acquisition, sales and research and development agency Armscor, Sipho Thomo, told the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Defence that the acquisition costs for South Africa for all eight A400Ms had soared from R17-billion to R47-billion – an increase of R30-billion (roughly €2,8-billion) for South Africa alone. 
Airbus then, and since, has vehemently denied this, at that time stating that “the price tag which has been attributed to Armscor’s CEO, Mr Sipho Thomo, is wildly exaggerated.”
...
A crude calculation, assum-ing the cost increase is the same for each and every aeroplane, would mean the programme, if South Africa were still a member, would have cost this country about another €19,5-million or roughly R200-million for each A400M, or something like €156-million, or R1,6-billion in total – a far cry from Thomo’s R30-billion figure.
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...he-ending-of-a400m-deal-2010-03-26

SAA A400M would probably cost around $ 190 million including prices rises (of which EADS said would not be forwarded to export customers! ). Roughly half of what Australia paid for their C-17, years ago.

Oh yeah, we can believe EADS-----NOT. Since the SAAF canceled their order for the A-400, we have seen EADS demanding more money per unit from their EU customers for a less capable airplane than what the EU customers originally wanted. EADS has essentially torn up the 2004 contracts as they no longer like the "fixed pricing" concept. Is that an indication on how they will treat the USAF KC-X contract (which is also a fixed price contract)?

BTW, nice try at deflecting the SA costs, by using the price per airplane, and fogetting the entire program of 14 airplanes (8 firm plus 6 option aircraft). Using you numbers, that alone comes to some R22.4B, which is a little closer to the R30B, isn't it. Somehow, I think Thomo knows a little more about the screw job EADS was trying with SA than you do. Perhaps EADS was using SA as a 'trial balloon' to see how the reaction would be once they started demanding the 'big money' from the EU customers?
 
SeJoWa
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:28 am

Neither the A400M nor the C-17 have been flying off the shelves. It's hardly enlightening to look at their "captive" markets, so only the SA and India deals provide some insight. Which amounts to not very much. I hope you guys are not going to go around in circles for the considerable number of years these planes might still be on the market. If you do, why don't you open your own Keesje-KCTB thread? Thank you in advance!

Back on topic, I wonder if the barrel construction method is economically feasible for the C-17, taking into account cross sections, size of autoclave, and projected production runs.

Data:
C-17 Fuselage diameter 22.5 feet (6.86 m)
B787 Cross Section: 226 inches (574 centimeters)

Sources:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/c17spec.htm
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/787-9prod.html

One Autoclave manufacturer for the 787 program:
http://www.thermalequipment.com/

B787 barrel manufacturing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GDqxnahwbk&feature=player_embedded

How about substituting the body of the A400-M?      

Or using some of these:
http://www.compositesworld.com/cdn/cms/0908hpc-farn2.jpg
floor beam for the Boeing 787 passenger jet. Source: HITCO Carbon Composites

I like the idea of a non-Abrams rated C-17 "light".

M1 in a C-17...
http://www.march.afrc.af.mil/shared/...todb/photos/090306-F-9876C-005.jpg
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2175
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:39 pm

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 11):
I wonder if the barrel construction method is economically feasible for the C-17

Are you wondering about the C-17 or the proposed C-17 light?

It's not the barrel section that makes it economical. It's the automation involved in using a fiber placed/tape laying machine to lay down your skins. If the autoclave is not large enough, then the fiber placed machine can still lay up the barrel, only it will then be split into smaller sections during the autoclave. You won't get as much savings as the complete barrel, but you will get a lot.

The real cost is to have to re-design the fuselage. Up-front engineering/cost would be prohibited for a C-17, but maybe not for a C-17 light.

The barrel section provide added structural efficiency which would benefit performance.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
SeJoWa
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:26 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 12):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 11):
I wonder if the barrel construction method is economically feasible for the C-17

Are you wondering about the C-17 or the proposed C-17 light?

Why not wonder about both? Improve the basic C-17 ( -> Diet C-17 ) while designing a parallel C-17 Light with the same dimensions, but less carrying capacity and lighter structure?

Maybe Boeing is dreaming of a hybrid aircraft so the C-17 can be more easily reoffered in fifteen years... (pure back-of-the-mind speculation)

It's all very intriguing.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:48 pm

it doesn't look as simple as using the 787 barrel upside down... there has got to be a lot of design work for the wing over and landing gear bays...

However could a 18 ft diameter meet the needs of the A/F ?
 
KennyK
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:08 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:51 pm

And what is the market for this 'paper' project, and I wonder how much it would cost to develop. So much for trashing the A400, the C-17 wasn't that hot to begin with in those early years.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2175
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:40 pm

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 13):
Why not wonder about both? Improve the basic C-17 ( -> Diet C-17 ) while designing a parallel C-17 Light with the same dimensions, but less carrying capacity and lighter structure?

If we have our ways, they would do both and provide jobs for many Engineers and support staff. Since the pool of Engineers and the computers that they have to use are a limited source, it would be difficult to juggle the C-17 redesign, the C-17 light (smaller fuselage), the Tanker (if they win), the 737 replacement, the 777 replacement, future helicopter work . . . Now that's a full plate!!!!

Quoting kanban (Reply 14):
However could a 18 ft diameter meet the needs of the A/F ?

What is the capability of the current fiber placed machine? What is the max diameter it can handle?

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
SeJoWa
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:16 am

I was thinking along the lines of an identical cross section, but with the Light version optimized for non-tank loads, as per Keesje. So the engineering of the Light would also benefit the standard version. It's pure speculation, as Boeing specifically talks about a narrower fuselage.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 16):
Quoting kanban (Reply 14):
However could a 18 ft diameter meet the needs of the A/F ?

What is the capability of the current fiber placed machine? What is the max diameter it can handle?

bikerthai

I recall reading that the present layup speed is not satisfactory or below expectations. I'd think the max diameter is mainly limited by the mandrel, which is definitely an impressive part.

Anyway, a lot is going on in the composite manufacturing world. We're shooting in the dark.
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:35 am

I am really a bit surprised about a less capable C 17 (C 16X?) as I always expected the opposite to happen:


A stretched, higher Take-Off-Weight version with new engines.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:46 am

Quoting 328JET (Reply 18):
I am really a bit surprised about a less capable C 17 (C 16X?) as I always expected the opposite to happen:


A stretched, higher Take-Off-Weight version with new engines.

That would actually become a C-5 replacement. We do not need that for some 20-30 years now that the C-5M program is rolling.

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 17):
the Light version optimized for non-tank loads, as per Keesje. So the engineering of the Light would also benefit the standard version. It's pure speculation, as Boeing specifically talks about a narrower fuselage.

Wouldn't that really be a sort of C-130X, the so-called 'fat herc' that LM has been looking at for a while now?
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5257
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Wed Jun 30, 2010 2:53 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Wouldn't that really be a sort of C-130X, the so-called 'fat herc' that LM has been looking at for a while now?

It's curious that they're keeping the same four engines for a smaller, lighter variant. Yes, I imagine it'd be about the size of the C-141 and shorter, but with a higher payload than the Herc --- along the lines of a "shrunk" C-17 with two bigger engines --- as their answer to the A400M, Embraer C390, Kawasaki C-2 and the planned Indo-Russian transport. Although something tells me that the "Joint" Future Theater Airlift would somehow end up as the AF's pet.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:06 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 17):
the Light version optimized for non-tank loads, as per Keesje. So the engineering of the Light would also benefit the standard version. It's pure speculation, as Boeing specifically talks about a narrower fuselage.

Wouldn't that really be a sort of C-130X, the so-called 'fat herc' that LM has been looking at for a while now?

Th3 C-17 has a payload of about 80 tonnes, the A400M of about 38 tonnes, the C130 of about 20 tonnes, the KC390 also about 20 tonnes.

Having a C17 version overlapping with a C130 seems impossible.



What's interesting is that both LM (fat Herc) and Boeing (C-17 Light) somehow feel the current C-17 + C130J combo isn't the perfect combination.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6085
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:57 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
What's interesting is that both LM (fat Herc) and Boeing (C-17 Light) somehow feel the current C-17 + C130J combo isn't the perfect combination.

To me it is always the simple case is do the manufacturers see a market for their product. Do they have a product for the market space or do they need to develop one? There is never a case where a product solution/situation remains "the answer" into perpetuity. It always depends on the market. And sometimes a market does not exist until.... it does.

In this case I think the problems of the A400M has brought attention to a space that did not exist before but that might need to be filled and that LM and Boeing think they may be able to make a profit on.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:31 pm

could there be commercial roles for the C17 light that would make it viable??? look at all the third world rough field freighters
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2175
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:41 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 23):
could there be commercial roles for the C17 light that would make it viable???

So if given an opportunity, Qatar would have bought C-17 light for their "humanitarian needs" instead of the C-17?
Sounds plausible to me . . .

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:28 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
That would actually become a C-5 replacement. We do not need that for some 20-30 years now that the C-5M program is rolling.

I beg to differ; with the retirement of some of the A models, and hints of retiring all of the A models because none of them are getting RERPed, a replacement isn't out of the question for the A model fleet. However; I don't see the C-17 ever being a C-5 replacement, even if it was stretched out. I personally don't see any current aircraft out there replacing the C-5 except a new made from scratch high wing design.

As far as the Narrow C-17 concept; I think it was just proposed concept to deter the USAF from considering the A400M since Airbus is trying to sell the things. I doubt it'll ever happen, and the USAF doesn't need anything like the A400M. The C-130 C-130J-30, C-17 fleet covers all that load and size requirement the USAF desires; and the C-5 picks up everything else.

Does anyone know the life expectancy of the C-17A?
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:34 am

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 25):
I don't see the C-17 ever being a C-5 replacement, even if it was stretched out.

Just out of curiosity, what specific limits do you see preventing a stretched, higher gross weight C-17 from replacing older C-5As?
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:47 am

Quoting dw747400 (Reply 26):
Just out of curiosity, what specific limits do you see preventing a stretched, higher gross weight C-17 from replacing older C-5As?

Its not the weight, its the size and capacity. They would have to redesign a landing gear system to support the extra weight, and increase the height of the aircraft so everytime you pulled up on the stick, you don't hit the tail/fuselage on the runway...That and having a front and rear loading aircraft helps out alot in the field, especially in combat areas where you can load/unload out of both ends fast and get the heck out of there. You can't just throw a front cargo door onto a C-17. You would have the stretch the crap out of a C-17 to get another 18 pallet positions. Its just not going to happen. In addition to stretching, they would have to redesign the wings and tail to support the weight...its just not feasible...
 
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:45 pm

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 25):
I doubt it'll ever happen, and the USAF doesn't need anything like the A400M.

Why is LM proposing a Fat Herc and Boeing a C/17 Light. For export ?

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 25):
However; I don't see the C-17 ever being a C-5 replacement, even if it was stretched out

I think everything would need to be bigger. But I don´t think the cross section would have to be bigger. Light optimized wings and GenX engines could do a lot IMO. (quick sketch a few yrs back)

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6085
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jul 01, 2010 3:03 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 28):
Why is LM proposing a Fat Herc and Boeing a C/17 Light. For export ?

Absolutely! There is already a market there that is not being met by the A400M. The A400M was supposed to meet it but with the problems the program is experiencing there is now an opportunity that they can exploit. And if they can interest the US military as well in the process, then all the better!

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:18 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 29):
Why is LM proposing a Fat Herc and Boeing a C/17 Light. For export ?

Absolutely!

I´m trying the find a major Defense LM / Boeing / MD / NG programs that was not launched on the back of US DOD funding...

F4, F5, F6, F8, F14, F15, F16, F18, F22, F35, F117, C130, KC135, C5, C17, CV22, C141, B1, B2, B52, B47.. nope help me out. Maybe it doesn´t work like that.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2175
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:24 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 30):

I´m trying the find a major Defense LM / Boeing / MD / NG programs that was not launched on the back of US DOD funding...

The 737 AEW&C program . . . but Boeing lost money on the Australian version. I wonder if they got some of it back with Turkey and Korea?

Aside: The third Wedgetail have been delivered and the first Peace Eye have made first flight.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6085
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:31 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 30):
I´m trying the find a major Defense LM / Boeing / MD / NG programs that was not launched on the back of US DOD funding...

F4, F5, F6, F8, F14, F15, F16, F18, F22, F35, F117, C130, KC135, C5, C17, CV22, C141, B1, B2, B52, B47.. nope help me out. Maybe it doesn´t work like that.

Maybe not the original program, but there have been many derivatives of platforms that were launched without the backing of DoD funding, The F-15SE Silent Eagle is a perfect example, is F-20 Tigershark is another. I think you could even add the KC-30 in there as well. And this is most certainly a derivative C-17.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2175
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:41 pm

Also . . . Japanese and Italian 767 Tankers . . .

As with anything not involving the US Arm Forces, the quantities for these program would be small. But the scope involved in the design and integration is the same.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:19 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 31):
The 737 AEW&C program . .
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 33):
Also . . . Japanese and Italian 767 Tankers

Yes, 707, 737, 747, 757, 767, DC10, DC9 also in US service. I would hardly call them defense programs though. They were derivatives with a customized load. Giving the C17 or C130 a entirely new fuselage and adjusting everything is a new aircraft.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2175
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:58 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 34):
I would hardly call them defense programs though.

True, these are not "pure-bred". But if you don't call them defense programs, then by that definition the KC-X or P-8 are not a defense programs either.

If I was venture to guess, the "defense" percentage (by cost) of the AEW&C or 767 AWACs (mainly the radar) would be higher than any "defense" portion on the KC-X.

But the fact that companies do not "launch" a pure bred defense aircraft unless they have a customer, and historically the customer was the DOD for a company like Boeing, then you are right in not finding any "war plane" made by Boeing etc. that is not based on a DOD platform.

Same would probably be true for Europe and Russia and there respective Defense Departments.

You won't find anything unless you look back far enough . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-26_Peashooter

 

Now, if you are talking UAVs (system of the future) - Boeing is putting money into several systems - SCAN Eagle, Hummingbird, HALE. Sure they hope the DOD will buy them, but there is no guarantee.

And as we American say - Happy 4th of July !!! (Independence Day)

Peace . . . and let the Tour De France Begin . . . I see it's going through your neck of the woods this year. . . Enjoy

bikerthai

[Edited 2010-07-01 14:48:26]

[Edited 2010-07-01 14:49:03]
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:36 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
What's interesting is that both LM (fat Herc) and Boeing (C-17 Light) somehow feel the current C-17 + C130J combo isn't the perfect combination.
Quoting keesje (Reply 28):
Why is LM proposing a Fat Herc and Boeing a C/17 Light. For export ?


Lockheed and Boeing are proposing new versions of current airframes to sell more aircraft and keep their production lines open. The same reason Airbus made the A318, A319 and A321?

Quoting keesje (Reply 30):
I´m trying the find a major Defense LM / Boeing / MD / NG programs that was not launched on the back of US DOD funding...


The C-130J was development was paid for my Lockheed without US DOD funds. Its first (launch) customer, the UK MOD bought them from Lockheed on a commercial contract. Lockheed also used company funds to build and test the HTTB which lead to the their decision to build the C-130J.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © pkaviation



The T2V-1 (T-1A) SeaStar Navy trainer was also developed by Lockheed, using company funds and following no DOD specification. The Navy later bought 150 examples.

The U-2 and A-12, predecessor of the YF-12/SR-71, was also developed with out DOD funding. However, there were US government funds involved.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:30 am

Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
What's interesting is that both LM (fat Herc) and Boeing (C-17 Light) somehow feel the current C-17 + C130J combo isn't the perfect combination.

But did the USAF decide that?

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 25):
Does anyone know the life expectancy of the C-17A?

IIRC, I believe it is around 50,000-60,000 flying hours and some 50,000 cycles.
 
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:42 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Quoting keesje (Reply 21):
What's interesting is that both LM (fat Herc) and Boeing (C-17 Light) somehow feel the current C-17 + C130J combo isn't the perfect combination.

But did the USAF decide that?


Yes, The USAF has acknowledged it may need an aircraft with more payload capacity than the C-130 after 2015. The US Army currently plans to acquire manned ground vehicles for brigade combat teams equipped with the Boeing Future Combat System that exceed the C-130's payload limits.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...wider-larger-c-130xl-to-fight.html
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Sat Jul 03, 2010 8:45 pm

That is why LM is looking at a 30-40 ton capable fatter C-130X. The NB C-17 could also fit the future USAF requirement. If the USAF is looking at the higher end of that capability, that eliminates the A-400.
 
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:14 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
That is why LM is looking at a 30-40 ton capable fatter C-130X. The NB C-17 could also fit the future USAF requirement. If the USAF is looking at the higher end of that capability, that eliminates the A-400.

Looking at the status of both the LM and BA ideas, eliminating the A400M might be a bit premature.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:49 am

Quoting keesje (Reply 40):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
That is why LM is looking at a 30-40 ton capable fatter C-130X. The NB C-17 could also fit the future USAF requirement. If the USAF is looking at the higher end of that capability, that eliminates the A-400.

Looking at the status of both the LM and BA ideas, eliminating the A400M might be a bit premature.

Why? Both would be developed from current airplanes, and that places their development not very far behind where the A-400 is now.
 
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Sun Jul 04, 2010 3:47 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
Why? Both would be developed from current airplanes, and that places their development not very far behind where the A-400 is now.

- 6 to 10 years I think, looking at recent programs.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:14 am

Quoting keesje (Reply 40):
Looking at the status of both the LM and BA ideas, eliminating the A400M might be a bit premature.

I think the status of the A400M eliminates the A400M quite nicely without any help from the US firms. The unit price for a A400M on even the most favorable numbers mentioned in the last year is still massively expensive compared to just buying more C17. Why introduce higher costs, extra training, fleet deployment issues, etc. when you can just toss a pile more C17 on the order books for less money. Certainly easier on the political cost front.

I'm not sure why Boeing wants to sell a C17 light unless they have been asked for it. I know they had been trying to market a short C17 for extreme tactical abilities. Perhaps this is a new approach to the same idea. I think a better idea would be to market a extreme heavy lift helicopter or osprey style aircaft instead given the high unit cost and traditionaly low risk taking mentality to the operators of military cargo airframes. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I really want minimum risk in the mentality of the people supplying troops with food and ammo... not to mention hauling the troops themselves. Yet thats not the mentality that works if you really need to get something in close to a hot area and do it with minimal to no prep work. Which means today, a helicopter is easier to sell as battlefield support instead of trying to sell congressment that you really need to risk a couple hundred million in aircraft and crew per aircraft used.


The Fat C130 just makes too much sense. More nations need a roughly C130 size and cost aircraft, but the C130 is either too "old" or just a bit too small. Don't forget the apeal that "new" has even if a "derivative" would be better. Calling it a C130 varient splits the difference between the attitudes which will help give supporters in the various nations talking points to lever others into supporting it.
 
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:42 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 43):
The unit price for a A400M on even the most favorable numbers mentioned in the last year is still massively expensive compared to just buying more C17.

No. The cost of the A400M have grown, but still nowhere close to the C-17.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 43):
m not sure why Boeing wants to sell a C17 light unless they have been asked for it.

They want to keep the Long Beach line open and know congress more then supports them.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 43):
Why introduce higher costs, extra training, fleet deployment issues, etc. when you can just toss a pile more C17 on the order books for less money. Certainly easier on the political cost front.

It has capabilities the C-17 does not have and costs less.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 43):
I think a better idea would be to market a extreme heavy lift helicopter or osprey style aircaft instead given the high unit cost and traditionaly low risk taking mentality to the operators of military cargo airframes.

They have been looking at that for years, Quad rotors and other innovative options. I have the feeling everyone is doing a step back from the costs and risks.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 43):
The Fat C130 just makes too much sense. More nations need a roughly C130 size and cost aircraft, but the C130 is either too "old" or just a bit too small. Don't forget the apeal that "new" has even if a "derivative" would be better. Calling it a C130 varient splits the difference between the attitudes which will help give supporters in the various nations talking points to lever others into supporting it.

The Fat herc to lift the required ~35-40 tonnes tactical perfromance would require new engines, new wings, landing gear, tail, systems etc. Simply an entirely new aircraft. Everybody knows. Any party saying it is a feasible idea immediately finds himself with a split tonque when the A400M comes on the table..

I would not be suprised if Lockheed and EADS find each other. They have good cooperation already. A result could be a customized A400M version and a brand new STOL 20-25t C130 replacement with a biiger cargo deck. That market is much bigger then the ~40t segment.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:10 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 40):
Looking at the status of both the LM and BA ideas, eliminating the A400M might be a bit premature.
Quoting keesje (Reply 42):
- 6 to 10 years I think, looking at recent programs.
Quoting keesje (Reply 44):
No. The cost of the A400M have grown, but still nowhere close to the C-17.
Quoting keesje (Reply 44):
It has capabilities the C-17 does not have and costs less.
Quoting keesje (Reply 44):
I have the feeling everyone is doing a step back from the costs and risks.
Quoting keesje (Reply 44):
The Fat herc to lift the required ~35-40 tonnes tactical perfromance would require new engines, new wings, landing gear, tail, systems etc. Simply an entirely new aircraft. Everybody knows. Any party saying it is a feasible idea immediately finds himself with a split tonque when the A400M comes on the table..

I would not be suprised if Lockheed and EADS find each other. They have good cooperation already. A result could be a customized A400M version and a brand new STOL 20-25t C130 replacement with a biiger cargo deck. That market is much bigger then the ~40t segment.

Maybe you need to get a job with EADS selling A-400s?
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:43 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 43):
More nations need a roughly C130 size and cost aircraft, but the C130 is either too "old" or just a bit too small.

You seem to contradict your self in the above statement. How can the C-130 be "roughly" the size needed but also be too small? And why would a 2010 built C-130 be too old?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
Maybe you need to get a job with EADS selling A-400s?


I am sure "keesje" could do a better job selling Airbus products than EADS. According to him they can fly faster and further, using less fuel, carrying more passengers and freight, for less initial cost and require less maintenance than any other manufacturers aircraft.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:54 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 46):
You seem to contradict your self in the above statement. How can the C-130 be "roughly" the size needed but also be too small? And why would a 2010 built C-130 be too old?

Equipment naturaly grows in size if you let it. Many nations let vehicle makers break the C130's bay size for various reasons. So a bigger C130 makes sense for these situations. Yet few nations need anything more than a "C130" class plane. And why would a 2010 C130 be too old? Read this forum a while. People complain that a 2015 767 is too old compared to a 2015 A330. Or any number of examples where the date at which a shape was named trumps the actual content of a aircraft. Procurment officers, Generals, Senators, and Presidents all suffer from this, which makes being able to say "all new" or "80% new" is far better than "yah we updated this old thing some".

Quoting keesje (Reply 44):
No. The cost of the A400M have grown, but still nowhere close to the C-17.

If by nowhere near, you mean north of 80% of the cost per frame with less than 50% of the capiblity... Sure.

Quoting keesje (Reply 44):
It has capabilities the C-17 does not have and costs less.

Noooo, actualy the A400M offered to customers today has very little to nothing outside wings, engine, and cargo bay. Its going to be years to see tanker and other promised equipment added. So, please wait to claim this when its actualy true.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:08 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 47):
Procurment officers, Generals, Senators, and Presidents all suffer from this, which makes being able to say "all new" or "80% new" is far better than "yah we updated this old thing some".


If that is true why doesn't the USAF have a fleet of Boeing C-14's or McDonnell Douglas C-15's, replacing the old C-130?

Your to young to remember Vietnam but the 20 year old Douglas A-1 was widely used there right along side brand new jets and in Korea obsolete North American F-51's (P-51) and Chance Vought F4U's were called back into front line service, because nothing could do the job better.
 
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 8864
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:12 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 47):
Equipment naturaly grows in size if you let it. Many nations let vehicle makers break the C130's bay size for various reasons. So a bigger C130 makes sense for these situations. Yet few nations need anything more than a "C130" class plane.
Quoting 474218 (Reply 48):
If that is true why doesn't the USAF have a fleet of Boeing C-14's or McDonnell Douglas C-15's, replacing the old C-130?

As said before there is IMO a clear requirement for an aircraft with the C-130 tactical performance, range , speed, soft terrain capability. Similar to the C-17 - A400M, the A400M is also twice as big and expensive so probably not the ideal C130 replacement for everybody. Most C-130 loads these days are probably lower then 12t. Doing those with a 37t A400M is a waste of capability/ money.

The C130 basic design is 50+ yrs old. Airforces ordering getting them in 2013 for the next 35 yrs are probably starting to scratch their heads. A good moment for LM to put a big white on the table and start collecting requirements. IMO similar range and performance as the C130, a substantial bigger cargo deck, 20-30t cargo, STOL, transatlantic range with 15t, 4 x 7500 shp..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests