Page 1 of 1

Boeing C-32

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:50 am
by PacoMartin
The Boeing C-32 , based on the B757, was introduced in June 1998 to replace the C-137 Stratoliner based on the B707.

The Prime Minister of Britain and royals have a three year old VIP aircraft based on a modified A330.

Is this jet a candidate for a replacement for the C-32 or does it have to be a Boeing?

Image
Image

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:52 am
by KFTG
The UK does not operate any C-32.

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:38 am
by IWMBH
The only operator of the C-32 is the US Air Force (which operates 8 of them). So the UK can’t replace them with A332’s because they don’t even operate them. The US Air Force is looking for a replacement though, but this will definitely be a American built plane.

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:10 am
by AC_B777
IWMBH wrote:
The only operator of the C-32 is the US Air Force (which operates 8 of them). So the UK can’t replace them with A332’s because they don’t even operate them. The US Air Force is looking for a replacement though, but this will definitely be a American built plane.

KFTG wrote:
The UK does not operate any C-32.


No where does the OP suggest that the modified RAF VIP A330 is a C-32, nor does he say that the RAF operates the C-32. He is simply asking a question. Based on the A330 platform, would the a/c be a "CANDIDATE" to replace the current C-32?
As stated, chances are it would have to be an American built a/c.

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:02 am
by Polot
I don’t see any replacement for them anytime soon, and I doubt the A330 would be in the running. Being European built aside, a 757->A332 is a massive jump in size. Modified 767s (to go along with tanker fleet) would have a much greater shot out of current potential aircraft, but I suspect by time replacement is looked out there will be a Boeing MOM/NMA out there.

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:07 pm
by IWMBH
Polot wrote:
I don’t see any replacement for them anytime soon, and I doubt the A330 would be in the running. Being European built aside, a 757->A332 is a massive jump in size. Modified 767s (to go along with tanker fleet) would have a much greater shot out of current potential aircraft, but I suspect by time replacement is looked out there will be a Boeing MOM/NMA out there.


The Air Force is actually already looking for a replacement, together with a number of other planes. https://www.defenseone.com/business/201 ... es/138269/

In the article the 767 is already mentioned, but I can imagine the 787 to be a candidate to. This because the E4 is considerably larger and needs to be replaced with the same type.

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:33 pm
by mwhcvt
IWMBH wrote:
The only operator of the C-32 is the US Air Force (which operates 8 of them). So the UK can’t replace them with A332’s because they don’t even operate them. The US Air Force is looking for a replacement though, but this will definitely be a American built plane.


So they could have a A321XLR then fresh from Airbus USA at Mobile

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:22 pm
by IWMBH
mwhcvt wrote:
IWMBH wrote:
The only operator of the C-32 is the US Air Force (which operates 8 of them). So the UK can’t replace them with A332’s because they don’t even operate them. The US Air Force is looking for a replacement though, but this will definitely be a American built plane.


So they could have a A321XLR then fresh from Airbus USA at Mobile


They probably could, but Airbus was prepared to build the KC-30 in the USA and even this wasn't enough to win the contract. I can't imagine an Airbus Air Force Two and I don't think this will ever happen. Furthermore, As mentioned before, the placement program isn't just for the C-32 but for a variety of AF planes and the A321 isn't suited to replace these planes. My best guess is the 788.

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:51 pm
by Slug71
Last I read, the 767 was the top replacement candidate for the C-32. Which will more than likely be the same platform for the E-4 and E-6 replacement.

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:04 pm
by mxaxai
Slug71 wrote:
Last I read, the 767 was the top replacement candidate for the C-32.

Ironic. The 767 was readily available when the C-32 was bought.

If it has to be from a US manufacturer, shouldn't the 737 MAX be the more obvious replacement? There are many airports that can easily accomodate a 757 or comparable narrowbodies, but not a 767 or the even larger 787.

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:21 pm
by IWMBH
mxaxai wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Last I read, the 767 was the top replacement candidate for the C-32.

Ironic. The 767 was readily available when the C-32 was bought.

If it has to be from a US manufacturer, shouldn't the 737 MAX be the more obvious replacement? There are many airports that can easily accomodate a 757 or comparable narrowbodies, but not a 767 or the even larger 787.


As mentioned above, they're not just replacing the C-32, but also a variety of other types with different tasks. Furthermore, they already operate the C-40B and still the AF felt the need to operate the C-32 besides it.

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:00 pm
by Slug71
IWMBH wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Last I read, the 767 was the top replacement candidate for the C-32.

Ironic. The 767 was readily available when the C-32 was bought.

If it has to be from a US manufacturer, shouldn't the 737 MAX be the more obvious replacement? There are many airports that can easily accomodate a 757 or comparable narrowbodies, but not a 767 or the even larger 787.


As mentioned above, they're not just replacing the C-32, but also a variety of other types with different tasks. Furthermore, they already operate the C-40B and still the AF felt the need to operate the C-32 besides it.


Correct. The E-4B and E-6 are also up for replacement.

Already a thread on that.
viewtopic.php?t=1367329

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:30 pm
by mwhcvt
Let’s face it ultimately this will likely end up being split over two families, with a few more C40B ordered to cover the lower end requirement with no concerns for fleet commonality as the DoD already operate a lot of 737 family aircraft and then a 767 based option for those uses and missions that need the larger frame

Ultimately the DoD will likely end up with 767 for pretty much any role that is currently utilising a 707/720 derived frame plus the E4B and then finally there will be the new 748 derived VC25B assuming that is the given designation

Although there’s an inherent joke if anyone thinks the military of any nation has ever really given a single toss about such silly stuff as cost saving commonality

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:01 am
by ZaphodHarkonnen
It's Boeing's competition to lose. My money is the USAF going to a split B767-2C/B737NG fleet for all the misc support airframes. Standardise on two and adjust capability to fit. If that means some E-4 capability has to be dropped then they'll drop it.

Why the 767 and 737? Those two models in particular have already had the engineering work done for US military use. So it's just a case of buying more. Something like the MAX or 787 would need new engineering work done.

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:27 am
by mwhcvt
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
It's Boeing's competition to lose. My money is the USAF going to a split B767-2C/B737NG fleet for all the misc support airframes. Standardise on two and adjust capability to fit. If that means some E-4 capability has to be dropped then they'll drop it.

Why the 767 and 737? Those two models in particular have already had the engineering work done for US military use. So it's just a case of buying more. Something like the MAX or 787 would need new engineering work done.


The thing is they likely will not have to drop anything from the E4 when going to a 767 the E-4 was introduced in the early to mid 70’s modern computing systems and communication systems will take up a fraction of the space that was needed back then

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:07 pm
by ZaphodHarkonnen
mwhcvt wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
It's Boeing's competition to lose. My money is the USAF going to a split B767-2C/B737NG fleet for all the misc support airframes. Standardise on two and adjust capability to fit. If that means some E-4 capability has to be dropped then they'll drop it.

Why the 767 and 737? Those two models in particular have already had the engineering work done for US military use. So it's just a case of buying more. Something like the MAX or 787 would need new engineering work done.


The thing is they likely will not have to drop anything from the E4 when going to a 767 the E-4 was introduced in the early to mid 70’s modern computing systems and communication systems will take up a fraction of the space that was needed back then


Maybe. It isn't like the E-4 systems have never been upgraded. And certain things like the trailing wire antenna will take up a specific amount of space due to physics. So much of what is in the thing is classified I don't think we'll get an idea of any changes required until after we're all dead.

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:08 pm
by hmmwv
Electronics have shrunk massively over the last couple of decades, going from 747 platform to a 767 platform is entirely possible, even if space requirement for systems like towed antenna remain the same there will be enough space saving to allow downsizing to a smaller aircraft. Remember the E-8 replacement is a 737.

Re: Boeing C-32

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:05 am
by ZaphodHarkonnen
hmmwv wrote:
Electronics have shrunk massively over the last couple of decades, going from 747 platform to a 767 platform is entirely possible, even if space requirement for systems like towed antenna remain the same there will be enough space saving to allow downsizing to a smaller aircraft. Remember the E-8 replacement is a 737.


Yes they have but your assumption is that they haven't applied any of these things to the E-4 or added new functionality to it.

It's totally plausible that an E-4 can be shrunk into a B767 without any loss of capability. But I don't think it's a clear and obvious thing. It's entirely plausible they might decide to reduce capability somewhere. Like less battle staff or reduced in flight time.