Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 1epic1 on August 18, 2006, 10:59:27 PM
-
heard this morninig on the news that if boeing doesnt recieve more fundings for the government they will be forced to cancel the production of the C-17 Cargo planes...supplies will be needed and now that may not happen cause of this...GOVERNMENT SUPPORT YOUR BOEING COMPANY NOW!
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - news) said on Friday it would end production of its C-17 military cargo plane in mid-2009 if it did not receive any further orders from the U.S. armed forces.
Boeing said in a widely expected announcement that it told suppliers to stop work on four planes for which there is no firm funding, which it said was the first step in the long process of shutting down its supply chain.
Boeing, which has been lobbying the U.S. Congress to continue production of the plane, said the last C-17 would roll off its Long Beach, California production line in mid-2009 unless it won new Department of Defense orders.
The Chicago-based company said shutting the production line could ultimately cost 5,500 Boeing jobs in California, Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona.
The aircraft, with a list price of about $200 million, is designed to carry large equipment and troops to hard-to-reach airfields. It has been in service since the 1990s.
It is one of Boeing's most significant projects, bringing in about $3 billion in annual revenue. Boeing's defense unit is on track to post about $30 billion in revenue this year.
The company said it is evaluating the financial impact of closing production and may incur costs which are not recoverable from the U.S. government.
Its stock fell $1.07 to $77.52 on the New York Stock Exchange.
Executives said a letter was sent to all 700 supplier companies on the aircraft, directing them to stop work on planes that lack funding.
Boeing said it made the decision to begin winding down its supply chain now because some components on the aircraft must be ordered 34 months before assembly of the plane.
"No one questions its (the C-17's) operational value," said Ron Marcotte, general manager of Boeing's Global Mobility Systems unit, in a statement. "But we can't continue carrying the program without additional orders from the U.S. government."
Boeing has orders on its books to build 44 more of the aircraft. Twenty-six are being built for the U.S. Air Force, rounding off its order for 180 of the planes.
A further 18 are to be built mostly for international customers, including Australia, Canada,
-
Boeing?
Government money?
:lol
-
typically Governments buy military transports furball, but Im sure you already knew that :rolleyes:
-
is this the last MD product that Boeing was still making?
-
Yes, the 717 (MD90) closed down year before last (IIRC).
When theC17 production ends it will be the last large airframe to be manufactured in California.
-
Originally posted by 1epic1
Its stock fell $1.07 to $77.52 on the New York Stock Exchange.
What kind of fall is it ? an up fall ?
-
The aircraft is obviously past it's time. A bigger, more efficient aircraft will take it's place.
-
Originally posted by straffo
What kind of fall is it ? an up fall ?
No it fell (went down) $1.07 from $78.59 to $77.52.
That's not an up fall even in France :p
-
Originally posted by rpm
The aircraft is obviously past it's time. A bigger, more efficient aircraft will take it's place.
Huh? This design only went into production in the early 90's..rather new I would think.
http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c17.asp
-
Originally posted by Bruno
No it fell (went down) $1.07 from $78.59 to $77.52.
That's not an up fall even in France :p
I guess the 'from $78.59" was implicit ... but I didn't thought of adding it.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Boeing?
Government money?
:lol
Shuddup Furball. :p
He means "contracts" ;) The government gets something in return for tax dollars other than a financial bail out or subsidies for creating commercial aircraft (hello airbus!)
-
Originally posted by 1epic1
heard this morninig on the news that if boeing doesnt recieve more fundings for the government they will be forced to cancel the production of the C-17 Cargo planes...supplies will be needed and now that may not happen cause of this...GOVERNMENT SUPPORT YOUR BOEING COMPANY NOW!
You want the US government to buy aircraft it doesn't want to keep the production line going? There's two words for that...welfare, or communism.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You want the US government to buy aircraft it doesn't want to keep the production line going? There's two words for that...welfare, or communism.
I was kind of wondering too, if the government feels they have enough, why would a taxpayer want them to order (and pay for with our taxes) a bunch more??
I would prefer they limit spending, not spend billions for unneeded aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I was kind of wondering too, if the government feels they have enough, why would a taxpayer want them to order (and pay for with our taxes) a bunch more??
I would prefer they limit spending, not spend billions for unneeded aircraft.
Exactly. Canada went through this under the Liberal Party. Chretien made the military buy a crapload of Bombardier Challenger small business jets out of thier meager budget. The military didn't want them but Chretien wanted to give pork to Bombardier so there you go. An airforce that had next to know heavy lift capability but a crapload of small passenger jets to fly around Members of Parliment. Totally ****ed thinking.
-
Won't somebody please think of the military industrial complex!
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
See Rule #5
-
Too many $20 Haliburton cheesburgers to pay for I guess.
Charon
-
What ever happened to the C 141???
-
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.
-
this is what happened to it
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
-
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???
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Maybe the USAF are thinking of switching to Airbus...
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Maybe the USAF are thinking of switching to Airbus...
Doubtful.
-
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
-
They're replacing it with a new turbine derivative of the Hughes H-4, dintchaknow?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
(http://castings.ca.boeing.com/images/pics/yc-14b.gif)
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! ;) )
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Doubtful.
As was switching to European helicopters for the President's helicopter...
-
If the military does not need any more they should not buy anymore. Did Boeing expect the need for these aircraft to be unlimited?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.