• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Boeing financing itself more C-17s for USAF

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
146
Points
710
Not betting the company, but a gamble:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/C1704078.xml&headline=Boeing%20Finances%2020%20More%20C-17s&channel=defense

Boeing, already financing 10 additional C-17s on its own dime beyond the U.S. Air Force order of 190, is also paying for the long-lead parts to build 20 more, according to an industry source.

The company began funding the extra C-17s in hopes that the Air Force would buy more. The Air Force has decided not to re-engine its entire C-5 fleet, leaving an opportunity for Boeing to continue selling the aircraft to the Pentagon. Despite an aggressive push last year for international sales, foreign buys could not carry the production line beyond Fiscal 2009.

The decision to add more company funding to the C-17 product line was approved April 4. The 20 new aircraft include five in the 2009 production lot as well as 15 in 2010.

Company officials find hope in comments from lawmakers who support extending the USAF buy beyond 190 as well as U.S. Transportation Command Chief Gen. Norton Schwartz's testimony to Congress supporting a buy of more of the heavy transports...

The Air Force included the purchase of 15 C-17s in its Fiscal 2009 unfunded priorities list to Congress; however, it has abdicated budgeting for the program, citing higher priorities like the Joint Strike Fighter and the KC-X refuler. This has forced Boeing to push Congress for extra funding...

Then there's this:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/04/222723/usaf-reveals-c-17-cracks-and-dispute-on-production-future.html

Boeing is fixing new fuselage cracks found on US Air Force C-17s, while senior commanders have made public an internal dispute over the future of the heavy airlifter's production line.

Testifying before a House of Representatives subcommittee on air and land forces, Air Mobility Command chief Gen Arthur Lichte revealed the C-17's structural problem for the first time.

Asked to elaborate, a Boeing source says the stress cracks are located beneath and forward of the wing. But he adds: "The cracks are a minor occurrence, and don't pose a safety hazard for the aircraft or flight crews. There's no impact on the operational readiness of these planes and the cracks are being fixed during regularly scheduled maintenance with a simple technique."

Lichte blames the problem on fatigue stress imposed by using thrust reversers on the aircraft's Pratt & Whitney F117-100 turbofan engines, as the formerly strategic airlifter often now performs the more intense, tactical airlift role.

The same hearing also revealed that Lichte and his counterpart at US Transportation Command, Gen Norton Schwartz, disagree over the need to keep the future of the C-17 production line open-ended. The dispute arises from a quirk in the USAF's budget plans. Next year's spending proposal includes no funds to buy more C-17s, and if this is accepted, Boeing could be forced to shut down its line in Long Beach, California, after the USAF's 190th aircraft is delivered in June 2009.

Boeing is fixing new fuselage cracks found on US Air Force C-17s, while senior commanders have made public an internal dispute over the future of the heavy airlifter's production line.

Testifying before a House of Representatives subcommittee on air and land forces, Air Mobility Command chief Gen Arthur Lichte revealed the C-17's structural problem for the first time.

Asked to elaborate, a Boeing source says the stress cracks are located beneath and forward of the wing. But he adds: "The cracks are a minor occurrence, and don't pose a safety hazard for the aircraft or flight crews. There's no impact on the operational readiness of these planes and the cracks are being fixed during regularly scheduled maintenance with a simple technique."

Lichte blames the problem on fatigue stress imposed by using thrust reversers on the aircraft's Pratt & Whitney F117-100 turbofan engines, as the formerly strategic airlifter often now performs the more intense, tactical airlift role.

The same hearing also revealed that Lichte and his counterpart at US Transportation Command, Gen Norton Schwartz, disagree over the need to keep the future of the C-17 production line open-ended. The dispute arises from a quirk in the USAF's budget plans. Next year's spending proposal includes no funds to buy more C-17s, and if this is accepted, Boeing could be forced to shut down its line in Long Beach, California, after the USAF's 190th aircraft is delivered in June 2009.

Instead the USAF wants Congress to add funds in an emergency supplemental budget to buy up to 15 more C-17s, allowing production to continue for at least one more year
[emphasis added].

Both Schwartz and Lichte agree the USAF needs a combined strategic airlifter fleet of 205 C-17s, plus 52 Lockheed Martin C-5Bs (upgraded to C-5Ms) and 59 C-5As. But consensus between the officials breaks down beyond this point.

In Lichte's view, the air force may need to buy even more C-17s, depending on the results of two studies due to report in 2009. But Schwartz believes 205 C-17s is the maximum needed, regardless of the studies...

Mark
Ottawa
 
I remain confident that the USAF will buy more C-17's and I wouldnt be surprised if a few more are bought by allies that are operating C-17's.
 
Perhaps 2 more tails for us? any thoughts regarding possibility of such aquisition...
 
Fraz said:
Perhaps 2 more tails for us? any thoughts regarding possibility of such aquisition...

We have more important priorities for the AF...Search and Rescue, MALE UAVS, escort choppers, etc.
 
With that I would not disagree... We needed the Chinooks over in Afstan 2 years ago, not just issuing RFP's again now... but perhaps someone in the know such as Globesmasher could shed some light on whether we are already stretched thin with the 4 we have (when all are operational)
 
The British just took delivery of their 5th aircraft with a 6th later this year.I would think two additional aircraft for Canada and Oz would certainly make sense from an operational standpoint,but there is always a trade off between limited dollars and operational needs.

C17.jpg

The C-17 being greeted at RAF Brize Norton with traditional plumes of spray from the station's fire tenders
[Picture: J Readshaw]
 
Given the orders for CC130Js and CH47s going thru, the Air element still has much to do about replacing it's CF18s, Griffons and UAVs BEFORE looking at additional C17s.  Hell, we're still working on making No 3 and 4 operational.
 
Back
Top