Author Topic: Boeing is being forced to cancel production of the C-17 (Read 1152 times)

Dago · « **Reply #15 on:** August 19, 2006, 11:02:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
Won't somebody please think of the military industrial complex!

Put them to work building small tactical nukes for airborne delivery to Iraq and Syria.

ROC · « **Reply #16 on:** August 19, 2006, 11:36:47 AM »

Mayor of Fairfield, where Travis AFB is home to many of these birds, says the Government has to cut back on buying these planes because they are stretched out in Iraq and can't afford them.

Hmm, now that's about the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. These planes are a drop in the bucket in the military budget.

The planes are large, cumberson, and expensive, the Military has decided they don't want to use these in an expanded capacity, for strategic reasons. You would Force them to buy and use these planes? Boeing does make other planes, and might get the new contract when they come up with something else the Military needs or wants.

Quote

heard this morninig on the news

That was your first mistake, thinking you got the right information from That source. This is the same source that will complain because the military is too large, then cry when it reduces a section, all the while gripe that the soldiers are over there using the planes in war to begin with.

Chairboy · « **Reply #17 on:** August 19, 2006, 11:45:33 AM »

This is called supply and demand. The person writing the article definately is trying to put some sort of weird socialist slant on it. The government is simply a customer. If the customer no longer exists, then the product is no longer built. This is not Airbus subsidies, it's basic capitalism at its finest.

Seagoon · « **Reply #18 on:** August 19, 2006, 11:46:23 AM »

Here at Ft. Bragg, both the SF and all the elements of the Airborne rely on fairly constant C17 flights out to Iraq and Afghanistan for resupply, we have C17s overhead in and out of Pope constantly. I know of nothing that can replace it in the Air Force inventory at present.

The only other AF transports that fly out of here are the C5 and the C130J. The C130 is too slow and not really an "international" resupply bird while the C5 is too big for constant resupply missions especially into smaller airfields. To me, this seems like a funding snafu unless they have a new airframe in the pipeline that is about to go operational.

- SEAGOON

Dago · « **Reply #19 on:** August 19, 2006, 03:24:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon
Here at Ft. Bragg, both the SF and all the elements of the Airborne rely on fairly constant C17 flights out to Iraq and Afghanistan for resupply, we have C17s overhead in and out of Pope constantly. I know of nothing that can replace it in the Air Force inventory at present.

The only other AF transports that fly out of here are the C5 and the C130J. The C130 is too slow and not really an "international" resupply bird while the C5 is too big for constant resupply missions especially into smaller airfields. To me, this seems like a funding snafu unless they have a new airframe in the pipeline that is about to go operational.

- SEAGOON

Agreed, and the C17 has taken my son to war and back from Pope, but if the military has enough, no need to buy more.

Dowding · « **Reply #20 on:** August 19, 2006, 03:53:31 PM »

See Rule #5

Charon · « **Reply #21 on:** August 19, 2006, 04:56:54 PM »

Too many $20 Haliburton cheesburgers to pay for I guess.

Charon

Jebus · « **Reply #22 on:** August 19, 2006, 06:01:50 PM »

What ever happened to the C 141???

Elfie · « **Reply #23 on:** August 19, 2006, 06:58:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jebus
What ever happened to the C 141???

Good question, I for one havent kept up with all the goings on in the AF in some time.

Billy Joe Bob · « **Reply #24 on:** August 20, 2006, 01:04:30 PM »

this is what happened to it

Quote

The Lockheed C-141 Starlifter was a military strategic airlifter in service with the United States Air Force. Introduced to replace slower piston-engined cargo planes such as the C-124 Globemaster II, the C-141 was designed to requirements set in 1960 and first flew in 1963; production deliveries of an eventual 285 planes began in 1965, 284 for the Military Airlift Command, and one for NASA. The aircraft remained in service for almost 40 years until the USAF withdrew the C-141 from service on May 5, 2006, replacing the aircraft with the C-17 Globemaster III.

from wikipedia

Jebus · « **Reply #25 on:** August 20, 2006, 04:00:25 PM »

So this goes back to the opening question. If the C-141 was replaced by the C-17....what is going to replace the C-17???

Chairboy · « **Reply #26 on:** August 20, 2006, 04:06:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jebus
So this goes back to the opening question. If the C-141 was replaced by the C-17....what is going to replace the C-17???

Who knows? Since the current fleet will probably last decades, we'll find out then.

Oh, wait... were you under the impression that once production ceases, all of the current C-17s will cease to function?

Jebus · « **Reply #27 on:** August 20, 2006, 06:07:09 PM »

No I understand they still fly, but usually they have a plane ready (or about ready)to take over the pre existing plane. That is why i ask.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 20, 2006, 10:30:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC
Huh? This design only went into production in the early 90's..rather new I would think.

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c17.asp

Prototype flew in 1975!!!

Chairboy · « **Reply #29 on:** August 20, 2006, 10:50:10 PM »

Jebus, the C-17 isn't a fighter that's been outperformed by a new generation of Soviet fighters, it's a freighter. It's not always necessary to have a replacement design ready. I don't know what the expected lifetime of the C-17 fleet is, but I've got a feeling that it'll be a while, especially if the fleet is big enough to do the job that's needed.

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but the only real ability it lacks that I know of is the soft field operations called out for in the C-17B proposal. Short of Abrams, seems like that's a need that's taken care of w/ C-130s.