User avatar
Mortyman
Topic Author
Posts: 5467
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 01, 2018 4:01 pm

Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?


USAF Wants More Airlift Capacity But With C-17 Out Of Production What Could Provide It?



http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24 ... 6Smb_KG1UM


If they are thinking about this already, why didn't they just keep the line open and made an improved version of the C-17 ?
 
wingman
Posts: 3537
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 01, 2018 4:30 pm

It reads like a Boeing product pitch and a very unstealthy one at that. I imagine they'd drool uncontrollably at the prospect of a dedicated 747-8 fleet of 25 frames for cargo and personnel hauling. The 767 has no inherent loading capability for anything much larger than Amazon boxes so that seems like a no go right off the bat.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 349
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Well, IF they are really THAT short of strategic transport capability (big IF; there was talk that USAF was force-fed freshly-built C-17 for years, by the Congress, despite Pentagon's wishes to stop)...

Expanding C-5M program to include the C-5A's, stuck in the desert, sounds like a plan (though I've heard they are not officially flyable anymore, as USAF no longer has their engines supported -- so ferrying them to conversion center might be a challenge).
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
EBJ68
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:20 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 01, 2018 6:52 pm

There is already a study being done to determine what the needs will be for airlifters in the future. https://othjournal.com/2017/03/06/next-gen-cx/
 
smithbs
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 01, 2018 7:49 pm

Isn't that the website that tried to foist a new F-15X on us?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1399883
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3063
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:23 pm

smithbs wrote:
Isn't that the website that tried to foist a new F-15X on us?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1399883

Yes it is. Same author too.

And it should be noted that Congress bought way more C-17's than what the USAF originally requested, and kept buying C-17's after the USAF told Congress to stop.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:29 pm

Another propaganda piece written by Boeing and published by the drive as noted above.

That being said, the KC-46 (well really the 767-2c) was investigated by engineers as a possible freighter to help recoup some production costs and fill gaps in deliveries of the KC-46. They've pitched it to the USAF before for utilization as a cargo variant to help lower costs.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3108
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:31 pm

smithbs wrote:
Isn't that the website that tried to foist a new F-15X on us?

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... &t=1399883

It is but they didn't generate the story themselves, the story came out of the recent discussion by the USAF of lifting the number of squadrons. The Drive just picked up the following story from Defence News,

Could the Air Force restart the C-17 production line?

As part of the Air Force’s push to boost its number of operational squadrons to 386 total, and the service may need additional C-17s, the head of Air Mobility Command said Friday.

The service’s expansion plan, which was named “The Air Force We Need” and unveiled this September, called for one airlift squadron and 14 tanker squadrons to be added by 2030.

At the time, service leaders from Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson to AMC Commander Gen. Maryanne Miller, said more work would need to be done in order to determine the mix of aircraft needed to get to the 386 squadron goal, which is 74 more than the service has now.

But now, AMC has a better idea of what it could require, Miller told reporters during an Oct. 26 roundtable.

The analysis from “The Air Force We Need” supports adding three new C-17 Globemaster III squadrons and cutting two C-130 Hercules squadrons from the airlift inventory, she said. That would bring the total number of airlift squadrons up to 54, an increase of one squadron.

But Boeing’s C-17 production line in Long Beach, California is dead, with the company having manufactured the final Globemaster in 2015. Increasing the number of C-17s could entail restarting the production line — an expensive proposition for any aircraft — but Miller said the Air Force had not yet begun discussing the possibility with Boeing.

"Those are the details that we have not looked at,” Miller said.

“That will be the next discussion as we proceed, talking with Congress and working with Congress, because the same would apply for the tanker fleet,” she said. “An additional 14 squadrons by 2030 — what would be the path to get there? Something we’re looking at, but again, this is just the initial stages of talking with Congress and getting this concept out there."

It’s unclear what other options would exist to increase the number of C-17 squadrons aside from restarting the production line. The U.S. Air Force currently operates 222 C-17s, but began retiring some of the oldest Globemaster IIIs in 2012. It may be possible that those C-17s could be taken out of storage and revitalized.

A spokeswoman for Boeing had no comment.

Miller stressed that discussions about the makeup of the future airlift fleet are still in the beginning stages, and will be informed not only by Congress but also by an ongoing AMC study.

That Mobility Capabilities Requirements Study is slated to be delivered to Capitol Hill in a couple of months, and may have different recommendations than the “Air Force We Need” analysis on how many airlift squadrons are needed, and of what aircraft models.

“The two studies took slightly different approaches to that,” she said. “The results of each of those studies will be reviewed and I think there will be a combination somewhere in there to try to validate the results of those studies put together.”

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... tion-line/

I don't see a need to lift C-17 numbers. I think there are other options for improving general freight before they embark on a very expensive restart of production. Nothing is going to happen or even really be considered before the Mobility Capabilities Requirements Study is presented anyway, this is just that very initial discussion to prepare the landscape for some more assessment.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 01, 2018 10:06 pm

C-17's should be rolling off an assembly line in Europe right now instead of the A400M.

The US government, Boeing and the USAF should have pushed harder for the C-17 to win the Europe airlift role. It would have had a zero dollar development cost making it a no brainer.

All it would have taken is to move the assembly line to Europe and to give some of the parts to European manufcturers.

The USAF could have agreed to take an extra 50 C-17's at the end of the European production run after 2020.

Lockheed would have sold more C-130J's to Europe as a result for the light tactical role.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 01, 2018 10:32 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
Well, IF they are really THAT short of strategic transport capability (big IF; there was talk that USAF was force-fed freshly-built C-17 for years, by the Congress, despite Pentagon's wishes to stop)...

Expanding C-5M program to include the C-5A's, stuck in the desert, sounds like a plan (though I've heard they are not officially flyable anymore, as USAF no longer has their engines supported -- so ferrying them to conversion center might be a challenge).


Cancelling the TF-39 support was probably an AF move to drive scrapping the A models. Lockheed did an extensive tear down of an A model and determined they had plenty of life left. That was not what AMC in their “C-17 is everything “ mode wanted to here, so send those pesky C-5 to the desert, never to fly again. I took 70-448 there and it was in great shape, a couple of “minors” in the 781.

GF
 
User avatar
Runway28L
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 01, 2018 10:38 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
Well, IF they are really THAT short of strategic transport capability (big IF; there was talk that USAF was force-fed freshly-built C-17 for years, by the Congress, despite Pentagon's wishes to stop)...

Expanding C-5M program to include the C-5A's, stuck in the desert, sounds like a plan (though I've heard they are not officially flyable anymore, as USAF no longer has their engines supported -- so ferrying them to conversion center might be a challenge).


Cancelling the TF-39 support was probably an AF move to drive scrapping the A models. Lockheed did an extensive tear down of an A model and determined they had plenty of life left. That was not what AMC in their “C-17 is everything “ mode wanted to here, so send those pesky C-5 to the desert, never to fly again. I took 70-448 there and it was in great shape, a couple of “minors” in the 781.

GF

Didn't the C-5A's get some sort of "C-5M lite" upgrade like avionics and such?
Greetings from KPIT! Check out my photos here: https://www.airliners.net/search?user=45 ... teAccepted
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Thu Nov 01, 2018 10:53 pm

Ozair wrote:
I don't see a need to lift C-17 numbers. I think there are other options for improving general freight before they embark on a very expensive restart of production.

This is correct.

It is quite easy to spread the load evenly across a transport fleet. Not alot of people get this. The USAF has vast overlapping capabilities. The majority of C-17 flights for instance could be done by C-130J's. You would need around three C-130J's for every C-17 flight and simply split the cargo.

If the cargo is oversized you could put it in a C-5M. You could replace two C-17 flights with a single C-5M flight. The only problem would be if that oversized cargo needed to go on a short runway. That is a very rare occurance and there is more than enough C-17's to do this.

Likewise if you run out of C-5M's. I'm sure a fraction of the flights are flying basic pallets a long distance into perfect runways. A 747-8 freighter could do that which would free up a handful of C-5M's.

If the US military wanted to improve freight movement by say 25% across the board within a couple years they dont need more C-17's. They would simply bring more C-130's to active service, maybe purchase some 747 freighters or RORO sealift and spread the missions across that.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:05 am

Runway28L wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
Well, IF they are really THAT short of strategic transport capability (big IF; there was talk that USAF was force-fed freshly-built C-17 for years, by the Congress, despite Pentagon's wishes to stop)...

Expanding C-5M program to include the C-5A's, stuck in the desert, sounds like a plan (though I've heard they are not officially flyable anymore, as USAF no longer has their engines supported -- so ferrying them to conversion center might be a challenge).


Cancelling the TF-39 support was probably an AF move to drive scrapping the A models. Lockheed did an extensive tear down of an A model and determined they had plenty of life left. That was not what AMC in their “C-17 is everything “ mode wanted to here, so send those pesky C-5 to the desert, never to fly again. I took 70-448 there and it was in great shape, a couple of “minors” in the 781.

GF

Didn't the C-5A's get some sort of "C-5M lite" upgrade like avionics and such?


Yes, I believe all the existing A models got the AMP avionics mod which brought them up to date—RNP 4, CPDLC, ADS-B and ADS-C and full FANS capability. Some more were boneyarded while that was in progress, so I don’t know the exact number. Plus in the mid-2000s all the TF-39s had been upgraded with HT-90 hot sections, which while never shown in the charts, had significantly better performance. I left Qatar once and cruised across Iraq 3,000 feet above the charted optimum altitude, better thrust.

Anything outsized that can be lifted by C-17 can be put in a C-5 and delivered to the same runway. The two planes, with C-17 loads, offer similar runway performance. Ramp movements is a C-17 advantage, as it needs less room.

GF
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Fri Nov 02, 2018 2:29 pm

At one point during the OT&E program on the C-17, Lockheed proposed delivering new C-5Ms for the same price as the C-17. The AF stopped funding for Lockheed’s storage and maintenance of C-5 tooling and jigs for producing them the next FY. Take that, Lockheed.

GF
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 10651
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:51 pm

Most European countries don't plan on invading places halfway around the world so don't need the C-17.

In fact I thought the US also wanted to stop doing that ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:27 pm

Gees this C-17 thread is starting to set the Military precedent similar to the Civil Aviations "did they stop building 757's too early... why is it many long for what is past and unrecoverable instead of looking to realistic possibllities for future..
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:14 am

C-17 production stopped too late...USAF got too many of them that they did not need.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Nov 03, 2018 3:50 am

QuarkFly wrote:
C-17 production stopped too late...USAF got too many of them that they did not need.


This.

Last I read (albeit some time ago when production was ending), the USAF was willing to sell some of their C-17s if an international customer was interested.

I think that article is based off someone's pipe dream.
Great aircraft, but it's not coming back. Pretty sure I've read the next heavy will fall between, and replace both the C-17 and C-5.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1477
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:32 pm

kanban wrote:
Gees this C-17 thread is starting to set the Military precedent similar to the Civil Aviations "did they stop building 757's too early... why is it many long for what is past and unrecoverable instead of looking to realistic possibllities for future..

*"Let the past die" and "It's time for the _______ (fill-in-blank) to end" certainly don't resonate with everyone. We each all have our own views, for better or for worse.

*with apologies to certain Force users.
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sat Nov 03, 2018 1:37 pm

Hey guys,
I agree with the general consensus about no-need-to-restart C-17 production BUT I bet if the US did Saudi Arabia would buy some and perhaps, just perhaps, India and Australia might top-up their fleets. The last Australian defence policy document (or whatever it was called) talked vaguely about additional heavy-lift in the (unspecified) future and I seem to remember that India wanted more than just the one white-tail left when production ceased. I have no idea if any of the other operators would want additional frames.
I too have read reports about the USAF apparently being willing to sell some of its used C-17s if asked.... Maybe Australia and India could top-up from USAF stock if and when they want to?
Plus, I have posted in the past in this forum that I was surprised that Singapore and Israel didn't buy C-17s.... I could imagine both finding C-17s to be useful. Maybe second-hand ones?
Cheers
Bunumuring
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
CX747
Posts: 6054
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:45 am

Trying to stay on track here.....

The USAF just came out with it's future force intentions and at this time, they want 3 more squadrons of C-17s. We all know the C-17 has been out of production for a while. Hence the rub. Do you re-start production? Bring back additional boneyard C-5s to help spread around C-17s? Does a 747 or 767 COTS solution assist?

One thing is for sure, the AF is going to have to do something.

1: Larger than (3) squadron purchase of C-17Bs. Turn this into a C-17 growth and partial C-130H retirement buy. The # and $ have to be great enough for Boeing to pull this off. Allow Allies to jump in and buy C-17Bs. I bet another 10-20 orders could easily appear. This would be costly BUT it is the only way you get new C-17s on the ramp. There is plenty of space for Boeing to make a new production line in Charleston.

2: Pull stored C-5s out of AMARG and make them C-5Ms. Grow existing C-5 squadrons to larger sizes in lieu of additional C-17 squadrons. (This is probably the cheapest and easiest way to do it. Due to that fact and the AF's desire to kill the C-5, it more than likely is DOA. Also, while I love FRED, 60% mission availability really stinks)

3: Buy 3-5 squadrons of 747-8Fs. The type is in production, can take on cargo needing nose loading and is already going to enter USAF service via the 747-8i. One school house, training facility and cadre for a 30-40 aircraft fleet. A call to Boeing and the 747 production line output increases likity split. An aircraft that does 80% of what you need strategically, with a 99% dispatch reliability rate and a worldwide support system already in place. (I see this or a 767 ala C-46 purchase as the most probable. Both the 747 and 767 are in production, entering US military service and capable of freeing up C-17s for "tactical" mission sets. It really is a plug and play option. Call Boeing, buy 30 and have half delivered to Dover and the other half to Travis.)

While I hope for the best, having watched the USAF over the course of my life leads me to believe......There will be no growth, no new buys. Somehow, some way, the USAF will magically make 1 current C-17, into 3 C-17s in the required Fiscal Year. This will be done through a "Rainbow" squadron or some other nonsense style mirage they have been doing for years. No Lieutenant, that 1 C-17 is now 3 C-17s, because the Excel spreadsheet says so.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:29 am

The C-5M has largely cured the 60% availability problem. Guys I know still operational say the M is very reliable and performs real well. The silliest idea was spreading them around six wings when they could have concentrated them in three. That said, RERP’ing the As is very unlikely, the line just finished up and will be closed soon. The As have life left, but it’d be expensive. As I posted, an A, with some updated wiring and plumbing with HT90 TF-39s is pretty decent bu5 if GE won’t support the engine, it’s done.

I also doubt reopening the C-17 line, maybe some stored ones brought back. Buying 747-8s is expensive and the capability can be bought in the commercial industry. See National Air Cargo, Western Global, others that pop up when the need is there.

GF
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:35 am

Why not consider the 777-F or look at the -F version of the 777-8? It's got nearly the payload capacity of the 747-200bcf, while having substantially better economics for it. It does lack a nose loading option, but then, so does the C-46/767-2C. I think that, if the USAF needs more strategic airlift, that represents a great option.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8146
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:00 pm

So to be clear, the US Air Force wanted and wants additional airlift capacity, they just did not want the additional C-17's that the congress forced them to take, one wonders why they did not just park them when they arrived and blamed lack of human resources, other than the A-10, that strategy worked well.
So what aircraft do they want to buy, A400's as a means to foster closer European ties due to the reduction of the military footprint in Europe that was planned then derailed by Putin?
 
texl1649
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:36 pm

The 748F is the most logical affordable cargo hauler, but I’m not sure I’ve read anything credible about interest in it from USAF. Other hand, it’s evident Boeing intends to pitch something related to the KC390 to the USAF. It will be interesting to say the least to see what requirements are developed. The USAF has no history of either reopening closed production lines or buying off the shelf civil freighters. Part of what made the c17 so expensive and inapt for civil use was its massively over engineered floor.
 
CX747
Posts: 6054
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:23 pm

Glad to hear the C-5M program increased mission availability. It was truly short-sighted to send almost 40+ airframes do the Boneyard that still had life. To then only a few years later have this report come out is damning. It shows how much Sequestration damaged the military.

The USAF DOES have a history of reopening production lines. The C-5 production line was reopened after closure and deliverd 50 C-5B aircraft from 1986-1989.

So, poor planning by civilian and military leadership has gotten us to this point. Outside of the "fake math" shuffle, I see two great options. Call Boeing and "Pay The Man" to make you as many new C-17s as you need. If the USG balks at the price, call Lockheed and "Pay The Man" to bring back to life C-5s in C-5M standard. Either way, PAY one of them to get the USAF out of poorly planned fleet decisions.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:43 pm

I don’t think Lockheed has the tooling to new-build C-5s as the AF stopped paying LM to store and maintain it as part of the C-5/C-17 issue. There is little need for pallet movers, it can be contracted if and when needed. Cheaper than organic lifters

Before accusing the AF of mismanaging the fleet, these are budgetary political decisions. The budget money goes to warfighters not trash hauling.

When you haul tanks, bulldozers, Mk V boats, sub propulsion unit, destroyer transmissions, the “over engineered” floor is not ridiculous, it’s a feature
 
ELBOB
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:25 pm

wingman wrote:
The 767 has no inherent loading capability for anything much larger than Amazon boxes so that seems like a no go right off the bat.


That might surprise the JADSF and Aeronautica Militare who received their KC-767s with main-deck side-cargo door...
 
texl1649
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:31 pm

The MD17 is what was somewhat of a nonstarter due to the floor and overall suitability. I again just think that in terms of Boeing, or Lockheed, seeking to make new USAF airlifters, the “tweener” capability with a clear present intent to move forward is the (future derivative pruduced stateside by Boeing) Kc390. I know the c5 has great unique abilities too, but it’s been a four decade adventure in serviceability and I can’t see that capability as needing to be expanded again. Lockheed isn’t going to go after re engining or producing any C141 derivatives, either, lol.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/10/ ... 0s-in.aspx
 
CX747
Posts: 6054
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:20 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I don’t think Lockheed has the tooling to new-build C-5s as the AF stopped paying LM to store and maintain it as part of the C-5/C-17 issue. There is little need for pallet movers, it can be contracted if and when needed. Cheaper than organic lifters

Before accusing the AF of mismanaging the fleet, these are budgetary political decisions. The budget money goes to warfighters not trash hauling.

When you haul tanks, bulldozers, Mk V boats, sub propulsion unit, destroyer transmissions, the “over engineered” floor is not ridiculous, it’s a feature


Sometimes the meaning of a post can get lost in the internet, so let me start off by saying you are correct. AF brass can only spend a certain amount of money each year and that amount is to a certain degree outside of their control. Once allotted their amount, they can only take care of a certain number of things.

Leadership has been missing through this sequestration time. Have any AF Brass gone forward and fought against cuts that have deeply hurt the AF's ability to put warheads on foreheads? There in my opinion has been a crashing wall of silence and yes men filling positions that require outside the box thinking and true leadership. The only real public statements during that time period was by the brass against pilots....Calling it "treasonous" to promote the A-10 and that everyone should be on the F-35 train. Where was that desire and passion when speaking on the Hill for budgets????? Leadership is the style of Retired Vice Admiral Connolly USN. That Admiral stood up in front of Congress and spoke the truth about the obmital F-111B program. Those statements killed the retched Naval version and gave birth to the legendary F-14. Career over, shortsighted fighter program that would have killed men, over. USN gaining a historic fighter jet achieved.

That isn't required every day but STAND and FIGHT to promote the service and its needs. Don't just meakly say "ok" and go back to your desk.

It seems right now the AF needs 3 squadrons more of C-17s. There are a few different ways to get there. Having the Head of AMC sound clueless in several reports on how the AF will accomplish that isn't putting one's best foot forward. My main goal is that the answer to this need is Top Spec, reliable tails are on the ramp in a few years time. That can be -17, -5, -46, -47 tails. Any amount of Rainbow Squadrons, or other funny math is a continued failure......one of the main reasons why the AF has the largest loss EVER of any service of Rated Officers over the past several years.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Elshad
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:41 pm

Airbus could set up an A400M line in Alabama and pitch it to the Air Force. Personally I don’t see C-17 production restarting.
 
mmo
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:58 pm

Actually, the easiest way to add additional squadrons is to change the unit allocation. Can't remember the exact numbers, but if the unit strength is authorized for 14 aircraft, if you reduced it to 10-12, then you can shift the assets and create new squadrons. However, until they get the current staffing issues sorted, nothing will happen for quite a while.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
CX747
Posts: 6054
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:12 pm

mmo wrote:
Actually, the easiest way to add additional squadrons is to change the unit allocation. Can't remember the exact numbers, but if the unit strength is authorized for 14 aircraft, if you reduced it to 10-12, then you can shift the assets and create new squadrons. However, until they get the current staffing issues sorted, nothing will happen for quite a while.


Sorry but I could not disagree more. This does not solve any problems. It just does funny math to make it seem like the issue is resolved. That type of activity has been the AF's go to nonsense for quite some time. Addition through subtraction is not real. Additional TAILS on the ramp are needed, not Excel spreadsheet garbage.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:24 pm

CX747 wrote:
It seems right now the AF needs 3 squadrons more of C-17s.

Source?

How did they determine it was additional C-17's?

Elshad wrote:
Airbus could set up an A400M line in Alabama and pitch it to the Air Force. Personally I don’t see C-17 production restarting.

I dont see the need of A400m's. You have so many C-130J available to do light tactical and 200 C-17's to do oversized tactical.

Japans C-2's would be far better option as a more vanilla medium airlift. Mass produced it would be cheaper than the A400m.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3108
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:21 am

RJMAZ wrote:
CX747 wrote:
It seems right now the AF needs 3 squadrons more of C-17s.

Source?

How did they determine it was additional C-17's?


That was the quote from “The Air Force We Need”

The analysis from “The Air Force We Need” supports adding three new C-17 Globemaster III squadrons and cutting two C-130 Hercules squadrons from the airlift inventory, she said. That would bring the total number of airlift squadrons up to 54, an increase of one squadron.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... tion-line/



RJMAZ wrote:
I dont see the need of A400m's. You have so many C-130J available to do light tactical and 200 C-17's to do oversized tactical.

Japans C-2's would be far better option as a more vanilla medium airlift. Mass produced it would be cheaper than the A400m.

Agree it is a better option than the A400M for this use case and what makes the C-2 even more attractive is it shares the same engine as the C-5M so could slide into the force structure easily.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:39 am

If they could improve availability by 20%, problem solved. But buying parts is no fun.
 
CX747
Posts: 6054
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:51 am

RJMAZ wrote:
CX747 wrote:
It seems right now the AF needs 3 squadrons more of C-17s.

Source?

How did they determine it was additional C-17's?

Elshad wrote:
Airbus could set up an A400M line in Alabama and pitch it to the Air Force. Personally I don’t see C-17 production restarting.

I dont see the need of A400m's. You have so many C-130J available to do light tactical and 200 C-17's to do oversized tactical.

Japans C-2's would be far better option as a more vanilla medium airlift. Mass produced it would be cheaper than the A400m.



https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... tion-line/

This is only a study or desire of where the USAF wants to be. The study calls for 3 more C-17 squadrons and a reduction of C-130 squadrons by 2. As the article states, getting 40+ new C-17s on the ramp means more than likely new production. Let's see what happens.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:06 am

CX747 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I don’t think Lockheed has the tooling to new-build C-5s as the AF stopped paying LM to store and maintain it as part of the C-5/C-17 issue. There is little need for pallet movers, it can be contracted if and when needed. Cheaper than organic lifters

Before accusing the AF of mismanaging the fleet, these are budgetary political decisions. The budget money goes to warfighters not trash hauling.

When you haul tanks, bulldozers, Mk V boats, sub propulsion unit, destroyer transmissions, the “over engineered” floor is not ridiculous, it’s a feature


Sometimes the meaning of a post can get lost in the internet, so let me start off by saying you are correct. AF brass can only spend a certain amount of money each year and that amount is to a certain degree outside of their control. Once allotted their amount, they can only take care of a certain number of things.

Leadership has been missing through this sequestration time. Have any AF Brass gone forward and fought against cuts that have deeply hurt the AF's ability to put warheads on foreheads? There in my opinion has been a crashing wall of silence and yes men filling positions that require outside the box thinking and true leadership. The only real public statements during that time period was by the brass against pilots....Calling it "treasonous" to promote the A-10 and that everyone should be on the F-35 train. Where was that desire and passion when speaking on the Hill for budgets????? Leadership is the style of Retired Vice Admiral Connolly USN. That Admiral stood up in front of Congress and spoke the truth about the obmital F-111B program. Those statements killed the retched Naval version and gave birth to the legendary F-14. Career over, shortsighted fighter program that would have killed men, over. USN gaining a historic fighter jet achieved.

That isn't required every day but STAND and FIGHT to promote the service and its needs. Don't just meakly say "ok" and go back to your desk.

It seems right now the AF needs 3 squadrons more of C-17s. There are a few different ways to get there. Having the Head of AMC sound clueless in several reports on how the AF will accomplish that isn't putting one's best foot forward. My main goal is that the answer to this need is Top Spec, reliable tails are on the ramp in a few years time. That can be -17, -5, -46, -47 tails. Any amount of Rainbow Squadrons, or other funny math is a continued failure......one of the main reasons why the AF has the largest loss EVER of any service of Rated Officers over the past several years.


I wouldn’t disagree with the thrust of your argument. Leadership in the AF is a sometime thing more often than not. But, you salute and try to make it work. If everyone who disagreed with the political decisions resigned, it’d be chaos. Tom Connnolly is a great example, but rather unique. Remember, he toed the line in the hearings until Sen Stennis directly addressed Adm Connolly.

GF
 
mmo
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:05 am

CX747 wrote:
mmo wrote:
Actually, the easiest way to add additional squadrons is to change the unit allocation. Can't remember the exact numbers, but if the unit strength is authorized for 14 aircraft, if you reduced it to 10-12, then you can shift the assets and create new squadrons. However, until they get the current staffing issues sorted, nothing will happen for quite a while.


Sorry but I could not disagree more. This does not solve any problems. It just does funny math to make it seem like the issue is resolved. That type of activity has been the AF's go to nonsense for quite some time. Addition through subtraction is not real. Additional TAILS on the ramp are needed, not Excel spreadsheet garbage.


Sorry but you are wrong. There are two things you overlook. First, the pilot shortage will kill this planned increase in all flying squadrons right out of the blocks. Secondly, you don't need additional airframes if you can increase the number if MC aircraft, you, in essence, get more aircraft.

Having additional squadrons, even using your "funny math" would also allow for more efficient and effective scheduling and operation.

You also fail to take into account the introduction if the KC-46. That aircraft, while billed as a KC-135 replacement, will also have an increased role in the cargo world.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23 ... opping-386

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... ot-crisis/
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7558
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:17 am

par13del wrote:
So to be clear, the US Air Force wanted and wants additional airlift capacity, they just did not want the additional C-17's that the congress forced them to take, one wonders why they did not just park them when they arrived and blamed lack of human resources, other than the A-10, that strategy worked well.


The USAF depends on the force structure allowed by the politicians. When they did not want more C-17s the political guideline was defining a shrinking force, with fewer squadrons. Today politicians have decided to grow the USAF again, they have defined more ambitious capabilities, which means the USAF needs moire squadrons and more planes.
 
CX747
Posts: 6054
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:54 pm

mmo wrote:
CX747 wrote:
mmo wrote:
Actually, the easiest way to add additional squadrons is to change the unit allocation. Can't remember the exact numbers, but if the unit strength is authorized for 14 aircraft, if you reduced it to 10-12, then you can shift the assets and create new squadrons. However, until they get the current staffing issues sorted, nothing will happen for quite a while.


Sorry but I could not disagree more. This does not solve any problems. It just does funny math to make it seem like the issue is resolved. That type of activity has been the AF's go to nonsense for quite some time. Addition through subtraction is not real. Additional TAILS on the ramp are needed, not Excel spreadsheet garbage.


Sorry but you are wrong. There are two things you overlook. First, the pilot shortage will kill this planned increase in all flying squadrons right out of the blocks. Secondly, you don't need additional airframes if you can increase the number if MC aircraft, you, in essence, get more aircraft.

Having additional squadrons, even using your "funny math" would also allow for more efficient and effective scheduling and operation.

You also fail to take into account the introduction if the KC-46. That aircraft, while billed as a KC-135 replacement, will also have an increased role in the cargo world.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23 ... opping-386

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... ot-crisis/


The current structure of the USAF and manning can not support what the document calls for. The document calls for growing the USAF and getting it to an actual level of being able to perform the missions it is called upon to do. At this time, the AF is is a world of hurt in many different areas and for many different reasons. The document is a possible blueprint to move forward.

The ways and the means of the past to "Force Generate" and "Create Efficiencies" have led to the exhausted state the AF is currently in. Their are some good ideas but as a whole the nature of the AF needs to change. We need to do what our mission states with appropriate manning and machines. Not the old mantra of "More with Less" or now the "More with whatever you can tape together." Everyone should be HAPPY the AF is going to grow and no longer attempt to burn out men and materials at an alarming rate!

Their is a supposed need for 3 more squadrons at current manning/aircraft policies. The AF will need to change how it does business to get 40+ new tails on the line and the appropriate levels of human beings to operate them. That will include increasing Pilot retention AND increasing pilot training. There are a TON of ways to do both. Saying you can't do it, is not an option. There are many ways. If you need ideas on how to get there just look at US Army Pursuit Pilot production in January 1940 vs production in January 1944. GROW the Air Force. No more fake math, Rainbow Squadrons and saying one airplane is now three because we said so.

If the USAF needs more pilots

1: Retain more pilots.
2: Hire more pilots
3: Provide enough facilities and materials to train more pilots.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2538
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:12 pm

CX747 wrote:
If the USAF needs more pilots

1: Retain more pilots.
2: Hire more pilots
3: Provide enough facilities and materials to train more pilots.


Or a completely new paradigm . . . design a new airlift system that will only require one pilot.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Noshow
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:15 pm

AFAIK some C-17 are stored in the desert. They could be reactivated with little money if there is a need. Plus old C-5 can be converted anytime.
At the last Farnborough trade show Boeing presented a model family of BWB transports and tankers that might follow the C-17. I don't see a need to build more C-17 on a new line.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 10651
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:31 pm

Is there really a clear direction on where the current administration wants to go with the military, and to do what ? Didn't Trump campaign on closing foreign bases ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
texl1649
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:50 pm

(Optionally) Pilotless military cargo and tankers will naturally be the first large vehicles to go fully unmanned. How the USAF officer corps goes through that will be interesting.
 
mmo
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:43 pm

Noshow wrote:
AFAIK some C-17 are stored in the desert. They could be reactivated with little money if there is a need. Plus old C-5 can be converted anytime.
At the last Farnborough trade show Boeing presented a model family of BWB transports and tankers that might follow the C-17. I don't see a need to build more C-17 on a new line.


There are NO C-17s stored at DM or anyplace else.

For CX747,

I left active duty in 1984 and there was a pilot shortage then. The problem with the USAF staff is they have very short memories. Until they fix the pilot shortage and maintainer shortage they can dream of all the squadrons they want but it's not going to happen.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 642
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:18 pm

Noshow wrote:
AFAIK some C-17 are stored in the desert. They could be reactivated with little money if there is a need. Plus old C-5 can be converted anytime.
At the last Farnborough trade show Boeing presented a model family of BWB transports and tankers that might follow the C-17. I don't see a need to build more C-17 on a new line.


No C-17's are in the boneyard, nor have any have been retired (other than T-1 which was the prototype and is at the NMUSAF).
No C-5 will ever come out of the desert...the RERP production line is closed, and the parts for future RERP's quit being made two years ago.
Of the 26 A models that are in the boneyard with AMP mod, only 8 of them remain in inviolate storage; the rest, along with the legacy C-5A's are up for reclamation.

CX747 wrote:
Glad to hear the C-5M program increased mission availability. It was truly short-sighted to send almost 40+ airframes do the Boneyard that still had life. To then only a few years later have this report come out is damning. It shows how much Sequestration damaged the military

Sequestration had nothing to do with the C-5 retirements. It was all politics with the continued purchasing of C-17's that doomed the C-5A. That and the reliability of the C-5M is not meeting the standard it was when they first came online. Now they run around 63% when they were supposed to be at 80%. The only thing the sequester did was cut manning when manning was already at critical levels, and this BS of M models being placed in storage was a nothingburger...all it was was some paperwork to reduce manning while the 10 jets at a time were in the RERP production line. Now that RERP is done, they are panicking over the lack of manning.
 
Ozair
Posts: 3108
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:11 pm

Galaxy5007 wrote:

No C-17's are in the boneyard, nor have any have been retired (other than T-1 which was the prototype and is at the NMUSAF).

It is an odd claim that DefenseNews has also made.
It’s unclear what other options would exist to increase the number of C-17 squadrons aside from restarting the production line. The U.S. Air Force currently operates 222 C-17s, but began retiring some of the oldest Globemaster IIIs in 2012. It may be possible that those C-17s could be taken out of storage and revitalized.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... tion-line/

As far as I can tell the only actual production C-17 that was/is in storage is F-272 which was the last whitetail and probably sold to India. Source is https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/ ... ng/JW5OS6A

Anyone know if India has actually acquired F-272 yet?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 1727
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:54 pm

Galaxy5007 wrote:
Noshow wrote:
AFAIK some C-17 are stored in the desert. They could be reactivated with little money if there is a need. Plus old C-5 can be converted anytime.
At the last Farnborough trade show Boeing presented a model family of BWB transports and tankers that might follow the C-17. I don't see a need to build more C-17 on a new line.


No C-17's are in the boneyard, nor have any have been retired (other than T-1 which was the prototype and is at the NMUSAF).
No C-5 will ever come out of the desert...the RERP production line is closed, and the parts for future RERP's quit being made two years ago.
Of the 26 A models that are in the boneyard with AMP mod, only 8 of them remain in inviolate storage; the rest, along with the legacy C-5A's are up for reclamation.

CX747 wrote:
Glad to hear the C-5M program increased mission availability. It was truly short-sighted to send almost 40+ airframes do the Boneyard that still had life. To then only a few years later have this report come out is damning. It shows how much Sequestration damaged the military

Sequestration had nothing to do with the C-5 retirements. It was all politics with the continued purchasing of C-17's that doomed the C-5A. That and the reliability of the C-5M is not meeting the standard it was when they first came online. Now they run around 63% when they were supposed to be at 80%. The only thing the sequester did was cut manning when manning was already at critical levels, and this BS of M models being placed in storage was a nothingburger...all it was was some paperwork to reduce manning while the 10 jets at a time were in the RERP production line. Now that RERP is done, they are panicking over the lack of manning.


Galaxy,

I was the OG at KCEF back in the early 2000s. Did all the As go thru AMP, IIRC there were about 65-ish available for AMP. Were most parted out already? What do you mean by “inviolate” storage?

GF
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 642
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

Re: Did C-17 production end too soon after all ?

Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:08 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Galaxy5007 wrote:
Noshow wrote:
AFAIK some C-17 are stored in the desert. They could be reactivated with little money if there is a need. Plus old C-5 can be converted anytime.
At the last Farnborough trade show Boeing presented a model family of BWB transports and tankers that might follow the C-17. I don't see a need to build more C-17 on a new line.


No C-17's are in the boneyard, nor have any have been retired (other than T-1 which was the prototype and is at the NMUSAF).
No C-5 will ever come out of the desert...the RERP production line is closed, and the parts for future RERP's quit being made two years ago.
Of the 26 A models that are in the boneyard with AMP mod, only 8 of them remain in inviolate storage; the rest, along with the legacy C-5A's are up for reclamation.

CX747 wrote:
Glad to hear the C-5M program increased mission availability. It was truly short-sighted to send almost 40+ airframes do the Boneyard that still had life. To then only a few years later have this report come out is damning. It shows how much Sequestration damaged the military

Sequestration had nothing to do with the C-5 retirements. It was all politics with the continued purchasing of C-17's that doomed the C-5A. That and the reliability of the C-5M is not meeting the standard it was when they first came online. Now they run around 63% when they were supposed to be at 80%. The only thing the sequester did was cut manning when manning was already at critical levels, and this BS of M models being placed in storage was a nothingburger...all it was was some paperwork to reduce manning while the 10 jets at a time were in the RERP production line. Now that RERP is done, they are panicking over the lack of manning.


Galaxy,

I was the OG at KCEF back in the early 2000s. Did all the As go thru AMP, IIRC there were about 65-ish available for AMP. Were most parted out already? What do you mean by “inviolate” storage?

GF

Negative. A total of 28 A models were AMP modified; 69-0024, the prototype was the only one that went through RERP as well to become an M model. The other 27 A models left were retired between 2013 and 2017, with the last 5 AMPed A models transferring to Westover for the last year of service (from Lackland) to help with the M model transition. 26 of those ended up in the boneyard, and one, 70-0451, ended up at Travis and is currently being used as a CANN bird until they put it over at the museum.
The other 32 legacy A models were retired in legacy form (no AMP) beginning in March 2011, with the last one being retired in December 2013. One escaped the boneyard and came here to Dover for the AMC Museum (69-0014).
Inviolate storage is where the aircraft is preserved for potential regeneration. Originally, all 27 AMP birds were to be in this type, but the FY18 budget reduced the number to 8. With no "qualified" people to operate them anymore, it is pretty much a zero chance that they will ever fly again.
Both of the C-5C's, which were former A models, were also AMP and RERPed, and are now called C-5M SCM's

The original 14 C-5A's that were retired in the mid 2000's were scrapped completely by 2010.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Slafter and 14 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos