Boeing is being forced to cancel production of the C-17

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Prototype flew in 1975!!!

You may be thinking of the YC-15.  The maiden flight of an actual C-17 was in 1991, and there was a ten year lull between the YC-15 and the beginning of the C-17 program.

[chance-airwolf]

C-17 was a good program to work on and has enjoyed a good ~20 year production run.  

Sad to see production come to an end... wonder what will fill the void in Long Beach (and at each of the programs subcontractors)?

Chance

[Yeager]

I forget the details but the USAF wanted more than 220 C-17s and is stopping at 180 (appx).  The reason the USAF doesnt want more is because the budget is getting tight due to the mini war being against militant islam, and they want to spend their money elsewhere, like on Fighters and unmanned bombers and crap like that.

[-dead-]

Maybe the USAF are thinking of switching to Airbus...

[Elfie]

Originally posted by -dead-
Maybe the USAF are thinking of switching to Airbus...

Doubtful.

[Phaser11]

Bring back the F-111.

If your wing don't sweep, you ain't sh......  do do

77th Fighter Squadron
RAF Upper Heyford
1988 to 1992

[Chairboy]

They're replacing it with a new turbine derivative of the Hughes H-4, dintchaknow?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Chairboy
You may be thinking of the YC-15.  The maiden flight of an actual C-17 was in 1991, and there was a ten year lull between the YC-15 and the beginning of the C-17 program.

Alot of the lessons learned from the YC-15 prototype were incorporated into the C-17, thats probably why Funk makes that statement. There were only two YC-15 prototypes built for the Air Force.(AMST program) The prototypes made their first flights in 1975 and flew for three years before the test program ended. So technically not a proto-type in the sense of the term, but in sense of the lessons learned it was.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Alot of the lessons learned from the YC-15 prototype were incorporated into the C-17, thats probably why Funk makes that statement. There were only two YC-15 prototypes built for the Air Force.(AMST program) The prototypes made their first flights in 1975 and flew for three years before the test program ended. So technically not a proto-type in the sense of the term, but in sense of the lessons learned it was.

Yep, I know, that's why I made the connection explicit and outlined the rough timeline.  When I read his message, I read it to imply that the C-17 was a 30yo plane.  That's not...  entirely...  acccurate, so I described the YC-15 project and the delay between it and the actual C-17.

Gotcha covered there.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Yep, I know, that's why I made the connection explicit and outlined the rough timeline.  When I read his message, I read it to imply that the C-17 was a 30yo plane.  That's not...  entirely...  acccurate, so I described the YC-15 project and the delay between it and the actual C-17.

Gotcha covered there.

Incidently,  here was Boeing's YC-14 that competed with MD's YC-15: (Hope this image comes through)



Alot of people thought the B-17 was ugly when matched up to the B-24 but ugly does not always mean poorly built. The fact that it only had two engines rather than 4 probably had alot to do with the decision not to go with the Boeing Proto-type, (and yes, it was ugly compared to the YC-15! )

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Elfie
Doubtful.

As was switching to European helicopters for the President's helicopter...

[lukster]

If the military does not need any more they should not buy anymore. Did Boeing expect the need for these aircraft to be unlimited?

[Seagoon]

Hi lukster,

I agree that we shouldn't be overpurchasing anything. However, I am slightly concerned in that we will inevitably lose some of these A/C simply due to airframe fatigue or accidents or possibly as more and more MANPADs are supplied to Jihadis - combat. How long will it take to gear up to produce them again, and wouldn't it be better to have a standing order to produce at least 1 or 2 a year rather than shutting down production entirely on a mission critical aircraft?

[Elfie]

Originally posted by -dead-
As was switching to European helicopters for the President's helicopter...

Supplying a few helicopters for presidential use is vastly different imo than supplying a fleet of aircraft for the military.

It wouldnt be to big of a deal to replace a few helicopters used to fly the president around. It would be a far bigger deal to not be able to get spare parts for a mission critical aircraft because the builders of the aircraft no longer like you.

It would be incredibly stupid to allow Airbus to supply our military transports unless the planes and the parts were built in the US. I dont see Airbus building new factories here just to build a few hundred planes.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Elfie
Supplying a few helicopters for presidential use is vastly different imo than supplying a fleet of aircraft for the military.

You've missed some big news. The US military has already ordered 322 european EC145 helicopters, which will be designated as UH-72A.

http://www.defensenews.com/farnborough/story.php?id=1943784

Eurocopter Win Shows Pentagon Is Globalizing

By GREG GRANT

The U.S. Army�s selection last week of Franco-German concern Eurocopter to supply its new Light Utility Helicopter (LUH), with a potential total program value of $3 billion, is a strong signal that the Pentagon has fully embraced globalization and open-door procurement policies, industry analysts said.
�It�s an open market and helicopters are a commodity product,� said the Teal Group�s Richard Aboulafia. He said Pentagon buyers look at helicopters as mere platforms, the manufacture of which can be outsourced to any country.
Prevailing domestic political winds that say �buy American� mean little when a politically favorable �virtual industrial constituency� can be engineered with promises of new manufacturing facilities in friendly lawmakers� districts once a contract is awarded.
The Army intends to buy 322 aircraft based on Eurocopter�s proven civilian EC 145 design, now given the military designation UH-72A, with first delivery expected in November. Eurocopter is the helicopter unit of EADS, which controls 80 percent of aerospace industry giant Airbus.
To build the Army�s new helicopter fleet, Eurocopter plans a major expansion of its two-year-old plant in Columbus, Miss., and will triple its work force there, said EADS North American Chief Executive Ralph Crosby. He said the EC 145 production line will transition in stages from an existing German facility to America, beginning with partial assembly, followed by full assembly and eventually U.S. manufacture of major subsystems.
The German plant will continue to manufacture the civilian EC 145, while the American plant turns out the military versions.
While Eurocopter has supplied small numbers of its civilian helicopters to U.S. law enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security, EADS officials said the Army award is the �first major win as a prime contractor for the U.S. military.� The Army�s new LUH will replace the Vietnam War-era UH-1 Huey helicopters, flown by the Army National Guard.
The Eurocopter aircraft beat out offerings by fellow European contender AgustaWestland and U.S. helicopter-makers MD Helicopters and Textron�s Bell Helicopters.
The Army�s contract with EADS marks the second major Pentagon win by a European helicopter maker. Italy�s AgustaWestland won the $6 billion Marine One contract with partner Lockheed Martin to build 23 helicopters to transport the U.S. president, based on the European EH101 design.
In the past, European helicopter makers have lost out in competitions because they couldn�t provide the same level of after-market support as U.S. manufacturers, said Rhett Flater, executive director of AHS International � the Vertical Flight Society, an industry group in Alexandria, Va.
For the LUH competition, EADS teamed with American helicopter-maker Sikorsky, which currently supports the Army helicopter fleet. Sikorsky�s involvement likely gave EADS the edge over the Bell and MD Helicopter offerings, Aboulafia said.
He said the European firms are reaping the benefits of having spent heavily over the past decade to upgrade and improve existing platforms and develop traditional new helicopters, while American companies bet heavily on the future of more complex and much more costly tilt-rotor aircraft.