RAAF C-17 fleet to grow
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me it is clear that for quick and reactive heavy lift, the C-17 is the natural proven platform of choice.
My concern is that for realisation of aid relief strategy, you require the assets to distribute aid once in theatre, and for that SH and C-130 aircraft are your friends.
My concern is that for realisation of aid relief strategy, you require the assets to distribute aid once in theatre, and for that SH and C-130 aircraft are your friends.
End of the line
According to Boeing News, the final C-17 left Long Beach yesterday. It flew to the Boeing facility in San Antonio and will be delivered to Qatar Emiri Air Force in early 2016.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Left for San Antonio, the check-out and maintenance depot. According to AW&ST there is one unspoken for white tail still in the hangar there.
Boeing Ends C-17 Airlifter Production in California | Defense content from Aviation Week
"....LOS ANGELES – Boeing closed out C-17 deliveries and seven decades of aircraft production in Long Beach, California, with the departure of the last airlifter for the Qatar Emiri air force to the company’s San Antonio facility on Nov 29.
The final aircraft is one of four C-17s that will be delivered to Qatar in 2016, and together with one aircraft that remains unsold and in storage in Texas, takes the overall production tally to 279. Not including the prototype, structural test airframes and the five undelivered aircraft, Boeing has so far officially delivered 271 C-17s, including 223 to the U.S. Air Force and 48 to international operators....."
Boeing Ends C-17 Airlifter Production in California | Defense content from Aviation Week
"....LOS ANGELES – Boeing closed out C-17 deliveries and seven decades of aircraft production in Long Beach, California, with the departure of the last airlifter for the Qatar Emiri air force to the company’s San Antonio facility on Nov 29.
The final aircraft is one of four C-17s that will be delivered to Qatar in 2016, and together with one aircraft that remains unsold and in storage in Texas, takes the overall production tally to 279. Not including the prototype, structural test airframes and the five undelivered aircraft, Boeing has so far officially delivered 271 C-17s, including 223 to the U.S. Air Force and 48 to international operators....."
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Could HMG, or PPRuNe [UK], have a whip-round to buy the White Tail?
When it hits the fan, as it always does, we never have enough assets.
When it hits the fan, as it always does, we never have enough assets.
Considering all the costs and troubles involved in developing new airplanes (e.g., C-17, A-400, KC-46...) it's a shame that, once sorted out, these costs are not amortized over a much larger fleet. Seems to me like such a waste not to.
Global, I believe the original plan was for 220 aircraft and they built 279, so at least it's not like many military programs where the development costs so much there's no money left to pay for the planned production run (F-22 and B-2 come to mind, with the F-35 a likely candidate).
Besides, if there was a demand for more aircraft, there's been plenty of opportunity for potential buyers to step up.
Besides, if there was a demand for more aircraft, there's been plenty of opportunity for potential buyers to step up.
With short-term politicians, platforms remaining in service for decades and spending profiles stretching way out into the future, there is a very valid concern that we have no credible way to keep our aircraft manufacturing windows inline with military demand cycles.
There will be demand for many more C-17s over the next decade or two, but no economic way for commercial manufactures to meet it. High-rate and efficient production runs are great for civilian products, but not for the peaks, troughs and uncertain funding profiles of military procurement.
There will be demand for many more C-17s over the next decade or two, but no economic way for commercial manufactures to meet it. High-rate and efficient production runs are great for civilian products, but not for the peaks, troughs and uncertain funding profiles of military procurement.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left for San Antonio, the check-out and maintenance depot. According to AW&ST there is one unspoken for white tail still in the hangar there.
1. San Antonio is not a "check-out" facility. San Antonio does heavy maintenance and mods and do check-out only to ensure airworthiness immediately prior to final delivery to the customer.
2. Ship 272 is the only unsold C-17. It is stored outside in a "preserved" state, not inside a hangar.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Global, I believe the original plan was for 220 aircraft.....
With short-term politicians, platforms remaining in service for decades and spending profiles stretching way out into the future, there is a very valid concern that we have no credible way to keep our aircraft manufacturing windows inline with military demand cycles.
There will be demand for many more C-17s over the next decade or two, but no economic way for commercial manufactures to meet it. High-rate and efficient production runs are great for civilian products, but not for the peaks, troughs and uncertain funding profiles of military procurement.
There will be demand for many more C-17s over the next decade or two, but no economic way for commercial manufactures to meet it. High-rate and efficient production runs are great for civilian products, but not for the peaks, troughs and uncertain funding profiles of military procurement.
I understand where you're coming from, but taken to an extreme it would mean we'd still be building C-141s and flying around KC-135s - oh wait
The C-17 is already fairly old technology - the engines (the F117 is really just the military version of the PW2000) date to the early 1980s and the airframe the mid 1980s. Most commercial aircraft from that vintage have either gone out of production or gone through at least one major redesign in that time frame. Further, military aircraft don't get anywhere near the hours/cycles that commercial airlines do and last much longer.
Eventually there will be a need to come up with a replacement for the C-17 - and yes it will be expensive. But it'll likely be a far better airplane due to the technological advances in the meantime.
OK, so they only planned for 210-200 tails. Still. The bird is a workhorse, like those which came before it. As a tax-payer I'd just like to continue to take advantage of the lower risk of equipping with a proven airplane, that is very capable. No longer an option now, but in my opinion, a short-sighted decision.
Evertonian
Eventually there will be a need to come up with a replacement for the C-17 - and yes it will be expensive. But it'll likely be a far better airplane due to the technological advances in the meantime.
(Now, if only someone could tell me why the B52 was never re-engined...)
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Now, if only someone could tell me why the B52 was never re-engined...)
The worst re-engine waste was arguably the re-engine portion of the C-5M upgrade.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand where you're coming from, but taken to an extreme it would mean we'd still be building C-141s and flying around KC-135s - oh wait
The C-17 is already fairly old technology - the engines (the F117 is really just the military version of the PW2000) date to the early 1980s and the airframe the mid 1980s.
The C-17 is already fairly old technology - the engines (the F117 is really just the military version of the PW2000) date to the early 1980s and the airframe the mid 1980s.
As an example, take the KC-46. It's based on the 767 which is OLDER than the C-17 (first flight was in 1981, the same year the C-17 proposal was submitted.) That "old tech" airframe still works GREAT and will continue to do so for decades to come. Modifying the new high tech 787 as a tanker will be much more difficult because it is a single point design very finely tuned to a very specific mission. Along those lines, it will be interesting to see if Airbus will be able to modify the A330NEO as a tanker. To make the A330 competitive will require much more than just mounting new engines. Once the fuselage is tweaked and stretched and longer span wings added, it will be interesting to see if it makes sense to go to all the effort and expense to modify and certify it as a tanker when new-build KC-46s will still be available.
I read recently that Airbus plans to avoid that issue by continuing to manufacture the 'Classic' A330 to serve as their tanker platform even
after the NEO enters service.
after the NEO enters service.
There is a New Standard A330 'green' aircraft for new customers' MRTTs; it is not based on the A330neo.
But with the emergence of the A350XWB, it is likely that redundant A330 airliners could be converted into a 'lite' MRTT configuration for 'price sensitive' customers, as was the case with the A310.
Several years ago, Boeing themselves admitted that it would not be possible to develop the 787 into a tanker as it didn't have the 'necessary configuration', whatever that was supposed to mean.
So the future still looks like A330MRTT or KC-46A only - although the KC-390 might have some limited potential, much the same as the KC-130.
But with the emergence of the A350XWB, it is likely that redundant A330 airliners could be converted into a 'lite' MRTT configuration for 'price sensitive' customers, as was the case with the A310.
Several years ago, Boeing themselves admitted that it would not be possible to develop the 787 into a tanker as it didn't have the 'necessary configuration', whatever that was supposed to mean.
So the future still looks like A330MRTT or KC-46A only - although the KC-390 might have some limited potential, much the same as the KC-130.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. Are they going to keep two parallel lines running, one assembling the A330CEO and the other the A330NEO, or are they going to try to produce both the CEO and the NEO on the same line?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
likely that redundant A330 airliners could be converted into a 'lite' MRTT configuration for 'price sensitive' customers
Whether they are 'lite' I cannot say, but the impression at the announcement was they would be to same standard as first new build RAAF aircraft.
