French C-17?
Seeing as how Secretary gates has just ruled out ANY further USAF C-17 orders, perhaps the dream ticket of C-17 and C-130J is no longer going to be an option?
A400M or bust?
A400M or bust?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider this history:
V-22 Osprey
Cost
In 1986 the cost of a single V-22 was estimated at $24 million, with 923 aircraft to be built. In 1989 the Bush administration cancelled the project, at which time the unit cost was estimated at $35 million, with 602 aircraft. The V-22 question caused friction between [then] Secretary of Defense Richard B. Cheney and Congress throughout his tenure. DoD spent some of the money Congress appropriated to develop the aircraft, but congressional sources accused Cheney, who continued to oppose the Osprey, of violating the law by not moving ahead as Congress had directed. Cheney argued that building and testing the prototype Osprey would cost more than the amount appropriated. In the spring of 1992 several congressional supporters of the V-22 threatened to take Cheney to court over the issue. A little later, in the face of suggestions from congressional Republicans that Cheney's opposition to the Osprey was hurting President Bush's reelection campaign, especially in Texas and Pennsylvania where the aircraft would be built, Cheney relented and suggested spending $1.5 billion in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 to develop it. He made clear that he personally still opposed the Osprey and favored a less costly alternative.
The program was revived by the incoming Clinton administration...
V-22 Osprey
The point is, some cancelled DoD projects get un-cancelled. I predict that both more C-17's and F-22's will be built. The C-17 will stay in production continuously. F-22A production will go into a hiatus, then come back with F-22B's.
V-22 Osprey
Cost
In 1986 the cost of a single V-22 was estimated at $24 million, with 923 aircraft to be built. In 1989 the Bush administration cancelled the project, at which time the unit cost was estimated at $35 million, with 602 aircraft. The V-22 question caused friction between [then] Secretary of Defense Richard B. Cheney and Congress throughout his tenure. DoD spent some of the money Congress appropriated to develop the aircraft, but congressional sources accused Cheney, who continued to oppose the Osprey, of violating the law by not moving ahead as Congress had directed. Cheney argued that building and testing the prototype Osprey would cost more than the amount appropriated. In the spring of 1992 several congressional supporters of the V-22 threatened to take Cheney to court over the issue. A little later, in the face of suggestions from congressional Republicans that Cheney's opposition to the Osprey was hurting President Bush's reelection campaign, especially in Texas and Pennsylvania where the aircraft would be built, Cheney relented and suggested spending $1.5 billion in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 to develop it. He made clear that he personally still opposed the Osprey and favored a less costly alternative.
The program was revived by the incoming Clinton administration...
V-22 Osprey
The point is, some cancelled DoD projects get un-cancelled. I predict that both more C-17's and F-22's will be built. The C-17 will stay in production continuously. F-22A production will go into a hiatus, then come back with F-22B's.
I recall once saying how similar the early jet-powered 'FLA' concepts of the yet-to-be-named A400M looked not too unlike the last-gasp design concepts for the HS681....
And wondering whether it would ultimately go the same way...
Hope not.
And wondering whether it would ultimately go the same way...
Hope not.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: all over
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note the statement "TRUE tactical"... C-17 is advertised as having "tactical airlift capabilities", but the USAF has found those are less than expected... with the aircraft being restricted from some situations Boeing had claimed it could handle.
That back-up capability is only good on paved surfaces... trying it on dirt always causes engine damage... as does most other dirt-surface operations.
That back-up capability is only good on paved surfaces... trying it on dirt always causes engine damage... as does most other dirt-surface operations.
I don't also understand what you mean by True Tactical capabilities vs. tactical airlift capabilities. We pretty much do everything a C-130 can do in a tactical environment. We land on dirt, we do low levels, we land on short Assault strips, we do airdrops and formation, and much more. But unlike the standard C130, we also can refuel giving us a theoretical unlimited range.
You are right about using reservers to back up on dirt fields, but that's due to FOD ingestion.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Aberystwyth
Age: 38
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USAF loves the C-17. Not quite sure what the USAF got from the C-17 that was less than expected.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, AU
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... and for the strategic role the C-5 still has the upper hand (when it doesn't break down that is!).
U.S. GAO - Defense Acquisitions: Timely and Accurate Estimates of Costs and Requirements Are Needed to Define Optimal Future Strategic Airlift Mix
Programme Delays
This would be a much better forum if it did not continually resort to nothing but Argumentum ad Hominem (fro the less educated - nothing but personal insult). Yes I work for Airbus and could be deemed to be somewhat biased but:
1. The C130J was late - the RAF was the launch customer and its delays led to one project officer taking over his Squadron to receive it into service and completing his tour before the first one arrived. It also led to additional costs on unplanned Majors which had to be completed on the retiring Ks and a complete re-vamp of the withdrawal programme.
2. The C17 was also late into USAF service and entered service unable fully to carry out its role. I remember visiting Charleston to be told that when it first arrived it was restricted to a range of 25 miles from base for quite some time - not a very useful airlifter.
That A400M is late is more than regrettable, especially in view of the Blair War Projects and the Brown Fiscal Squeezes but, if you want to be involved in development programmes, delays are always a possibility. A400M is now at a stage that both C130J (and that was only meant to be a modernisation programme) and C17 went through.
I notice as well that "rumour has it" in some form or other figures frequently in posts usually followed by strong vituperation, further insult and condemnation. Please bring some balanced debate into it.
1. The C130J was late - the RAF was the launch customer and its delays led to one project officer taking over his Squadron to receive it into service and completing his tour before the first one arrived. It also led to additional costs on unplanned Majors which had to be completed on the retiring Ks and a complete re-vamp of the withdrawal programme.
2. The C17 was also late into USAF service and entered service unable fully to carry out its role. I remember visiting Charleston to be told that when it first arrived it was restricted to a range of 25 miles from base for quite some time - not a very useful airlifter.
That A400M is late is more than regrettable, especially in view of the Blair War Projects and the Brown Fiscal Squeezes but, if you want to be involved in development programmes, delays are always a possibility. A400M is now at a stage that both C130J (and that was only meant to be a modernisation programme) and C17 went through.
I notice as well that "rumour has it" in some form or other figures frequently in posts usually followed by strong vituperation, further insult and condemnation. Please bring some balanced debate into it.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fairness, for a while it was looking like C-17 would be a dead programme. If it wasn't for the dribs and drabs of orders Long Beach has managed to eke out from the Canadians and others the French would be SOL because the line would have been closed by now given the reluctance to give USAF any more a few years back.
No matter what Gates says it's hard to see no more 17s for USAF now that the line is still humming especially given the operational requirements for Afstan, the issues the C-5 fleet has been having and the continuing delay in any lift enhancement arising from the replacement of KC-135.
No matter what Gates says it's hard to see no more 17s for USAF now that the line is still humming especially given the operational requirements for Afstan, the issues the C-5 fleet has been having and the continuing delay in any lift enhancement arising from the replacement of KC-135.
