Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Last C-17 to go to India...........

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Last C-17 to go to India...........

Old 28th Jun 2017, 15:54
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Last C-17 to go to India...........

The U.S. State Department has approved the possible sale to India of one Boeing C-17 transport aircraft, with an estimated cost of $366 million, a Pentagon agency said on Monday.




The Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in a statement it notified Congress on Monday of the sale, which includes four turbofan engines, a missile warning system, a countermeasures dispensing system and an identification friend or foe transponder.



Rueters
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2017, 22:07
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 82
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How much infrastructure is necessary to keep a 'fleet' of ONE aircraft operating?
Rosevidney1 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2017, 22:11
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Denmark
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't know, it is in addition to the 10 they already have.
piperpa46 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2017, 22:48
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Adelaide
Age: 39
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by piperpa46 View Post
How much infrastructure is necessary to keep a 'fleet' of ONE aircraft operating?.
Probably do like in Australia and participate in the global spares system. Engine craps out, and yours disappears into the ether and a new one appears.
Shagpile is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2017, 06:48
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
rather surprised Mr B didn't keep the line ticking over - I'd have thought there'd be a steady trickle of orders going forward - maybe not always bought in advance but willing to pick up a white tail off the shelf
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2017, 07:44
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
rather surprised Mr B didn't keep the line ticking over...
Seriously? And how much do you think that would cost, all on the off chance of a 'trickle of orders'?

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2017, 07:48
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
well the line is paid for so you have no major investment and you price each unit to reflect the cost of production + profit

Lot depends on how much of the Corproate Overhead you decide to load onto the programme but it keeps you in the game and, possibly more importantly, acts as road block to any new large freighter development by one of your rivals.............
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2017, 08:00
  #8 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 13,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Close the line at the end of the DoD contract and closure costs are paid for my the taxpayer. Keep it open and all ongoing costs and final closure costs are paid for by the shareholders....
ORAC is online now  
Old 29th Jun 2017, 09:23
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pfffft
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
well the line is paid for so you have no major investment
...only it isn't.
  • All the fixed assets (tooling, buildings, officers) depreciate on the balance sheet.
  • The operational costs of wages for staff, recurrent training, and all supporting logistics (Stores, etc) continue and inflate with time
  • The supply chain would need to be kept viable. Boeing's suppliers are not also going to hang around on the off-chance of getting onesy-twosey orders. In fact Boeing's suppliers could very well hit them with Minimum Order Quantities, meaning you pay a lot up front to build a one-er, and sit the surplus kit on the shelf (which you're now carrying on the balance sheet, depreciating, and may time-ex)

CapEx is one thing, and probably well amortised, but the on-going op costs would sting. Cash is king!
Another St Ivian is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2017, 12:55
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 82
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's too late now, at least for Boeing Long Beach where all the C-17 were built:

A year and a half after the 279th — and last — C-17 military cargo plane took off from Long Beach Airport, Douglas Park, the former home of Boeing and Douglas Aircraft, is undergoing a renaissance.

Once-bustling assembly lines for Boeing’s C-17s and 717 commercial airliners and Douglas’ DC-8 passenger jets — not to mention a long list of other famed aircraft — have disappeared into the horizon of history.

But the former aerospace manufacturing hub at Lakewood Boulevard and Carson Street is fast becoming a hotbed of commercial and industrial activity, including for South Bay companies.

“Douglas Park is an economic home run for Long Beach,” said Mayor Robert Garcia.

City officials said they originally thought the 238-acre site, so named to honor its lofty past, would be finished by 2020. Now it appears the ambitious undertaking next to Long Beach Airport will be completed next year.

When it’s done, Douglas Park will feature 4.1 million square feet of building space and offer 5,000 jobs, city officials said recently.

That sounds like a lot. And it is. But it’s modest when stacked against the tens of thousands who gathered there for decades to assemble more than 15,000 passenger jets and warplanes.
Boeing auctioned off all the heavy equipment in the facility. If there are anymore C-17s to be built, it won't be in Long Beach, CA.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2017, 19:55
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 82
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
piperpa46 wrote:

Don't know, it is in addition to the 10 they already have.

Doh! That will (or ought) to teach me not to post when virtually asleep on my feet!
Rosevidney1 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2017, 22:23
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 74
Posts: 9,516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
The U.S. State Department has approved the possible sale to India of one Boeing C-17 transport aircraft, with an estimated cost of $366 million, a Pentagon agency said on Monday.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in a statement it notified Congress on Monday of the sale, which includes four turbofan engines, a missile warning system, a countermeasures dispensing system and an identification friend or foe transponder.

Rueters
So that's what they do with the overseas aid we give them that they say they do not need.
chevvron is online now  
Old 30th Jun 2017, 00:34
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
well the line is paid for so you have no major investment and you price each unit to reflect the cost of production + profit
Harry, it takes a boatload of money to keep a large production line open. Not only are you talking a huge factory - with all the associated costs such as lights, taxes, etc. - there are all the costs the thousands of vendors have to keep the capability going. Vendors are promised a minimum production rate - if it drops below that they are under no obligation to maintain their capability. Bottom line, it's nearly impossible to build airplanes profitably at much less than one/month. When Boeing slowed the 747-8 production to six/year, they took a billion dollar write-off - and the only reason they are bothering to keep the line open is they think the 747-8F still has a promising future (there are over a hundred 747-400F and -400BCFs (not to mention numerous 747 classics) out there that are north of 100,000 hours, and they can't keep flying them forever). Boeing claims they can build 747s at 1/month and make money, but not at 1/2 per month while Airbus is struggling to make the A380 cash flow positive at 1/month while they try to drum up new orders...
Boeing made the decision to build the last ten C-17s as white tails - betting a few billion dollars that they'd be able to sell them eventually. They did, but it took over three years to move all 10 aircraft.
tdracer is online now  
Old 30th Jun 2017, 07:35
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know, I know - but a lot of it is in the accounting shuffle - the REAL cost I guess is keeping the people on teh production line up to speed

Cost -wise it will probably cost a lot more in the long run to spec., design, test and build a replacement
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2017, 08:36
  #15 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 13,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But they claim they won't need a new one for over 40 years. That's a long time to pay a company to keep a couple of thousand people and $Bs in assets tied up waiting for the odd order or two for a product which is rapidly becoming obsolete as engines, avionics and composite material technology moves on.
ORAC is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.