C-17 production

[the concerned]

I was reading a article that suggests the USAF are considering restarting production of more C-17's. Do people think this is a good idea.

[IanM]

Yes!

[Evergreen 44]

By coincidence I checked Pprune website earlier today and they have a thread running for this very subject.
Part of it mentioned that some of the early airframes have been withdrawn from service already. I am not sure if that means temporarily to conserve the fleet or permanently because they are out of hours. Would anyone know which a/c are currently withdrawn please - if any ?
I guess their high utilisation rate means that their very success will lead to earlier retirement the originally planned.
Given how important the C5 was / still is, they modernised earlier airframes and also made new ones so best replacement is more of the same.
Hopefully this precedent may lead to more C17's.


Regards,
Paul

[Thunder]

As far as I know there aren’t any C17’s at AMARG, which would suggest to me that they rotating airframes to even out flight hours across the fleet, with airframes being stored locally.

[Spitfire88]

I know the RAF has the fleet leader with regards to hours, by a very considerable margin.

[Evergreen 44]

As far as I know there aren’t any C17’s at AMARG, which would suggest to me that they rotating airframes to even out flight hours across the fleet, with airframes being stored locally.

Thanks for confirming. I was unaware of any C17's stored but if true it had to be fairly recent.
Not sure of the origin of stored a/c mentioned in the Pprune thread then ...

[eagle driver]

The probable location for stored C-17As is likely to be at Kelly ALC
Some C-17s have been there for some time.
One that I know of is 02-1102 which has a last known flight of 6th December 2017 into Kelly ALC as it happens.

[Evergreen 44]

The probable location for stored C-17As is likely to be at Kelly ALC
Some C-17s have been there for some time.
One that I know of is 02-1102 which has a last known flight of 6th December 2017 into Kelly ALC as it happens.

This for that Eagle Driver. One that I still need. I will see what I can find out for the others stored.
Best regards,
Paul

[eagle driver]

If anyone has access to MSF ,there is a report on there from i think last month listing quiet a few C-17s in and around the ALC .

[dragonchaser]

The list on MSF shows the following C17A’s present on 25th September.
88-0265
96-0005
97-0047
98-0050
02-1102
03-3120
03-3123
These are clearly not all stored as 03-3120 was in Europe last week.

[the concerned]

If production was restarted would you build the same. Or look to building a improved version. If the later what would people want.

[eagle driver]

The list on MSF shows the following C17A’s present on 25th September.
88-0265. Last known for 19/03/18 Mc Chord to Kelly
96-0005 -"- 15/05/18 Stewart to Kelly
97-0047 -" - 19/10/18 Kelly to Charleston
98-0050. -"- 13/06/18 Ft Worth to Kelly
02-1102 -"- 06/12/17 to kelly
03-3120. -"- 26/10/18 to Mc Chord
03-3123. -"- 02/10 /18 Kelly to Kelly (test flight)
These are clearly not all stored as 03-3120 was in Europe last week.

Added in the last known flights for the above list clearly most of these do not fill the bill for external storage aircraft.

[Evergreen 44]

If production was restarted would you build the same. Or look to building a improved version. If the later what would people want.

Based on the same problem with other cargo types, new engines and stretched fuselage are the two most obvious
Already discussed here:
https://www.defencetalk.com/military/fo ... ent.13478/

If the point relating to Boeing being contractually obliged to retain jigs/tooling is correct that would give the re-start/modification idea more credibility, more likely a modification / airframe life extension programme rather than new production though

Just for fun :
https://www.google.co.uk/search?client= ... 5dzjj8JmuM:

[tm74sqn]

I had an idea that C-17 jigs, etc, were retained and stored at DM . . . . ? As often happens, however, I may be wrong!

[Evergreen 44]

I had an idea that C-17 jigs, etc, were retained and stored at DM . . . . ? As often happens, however, I may be wrong!

Thanks for that
I would make sense for selected tooling to be kept at a storage facility. The point was made in the above link that some items can be reused at a production facility for use on another type wheras other equipment or type specific / major items would be kept elsewhere. Likely as not some tooling would be used at the type major overhaul centre (San Antonio : https://www.boeing.com/defense/c-17-globemaster-iii/ )

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c17+s ... ec1nwJTLKM:

At the risk of expanding the thread a little further, perhaps rather than redevelop the C17 the USAF may opt for a simpler supplementary cargo platform such as a militarised B767/B777 and use it on standard/airways non-tactical routes and keep C17s for more tactical deliveries.

How hard could it be to introduce a B767 into US military service ... oh dear

[rh226]

Regarding C-17s at Kelly, could I point out that Boeings provide depot maintenance for C-17s there - no doubt using the old SA-ALC facilities.

[turmo]

The C-17 is a horribly inefficient way to move anything short of an MBT. It is used so much because there wasn't enough of anything else in the inventory once the C-141s were retired.

A KC-10 will move 77 tonnes on 155klb thrust as a secondary role; a C-17 needs 172klb to lift 75 tonnes flying slower, lower and shorter.

They'd be better putting the money into for-but-not-with-boom KC-46 freighters ( C-46Bs? ) that can lift 45 tonnes and keeping the C-17s for the missions for which they were designed, moving outsized loads into tactical strips. Not plying the Atlantic daily on ass-and-trash runs.

[Arthur Tee]

It won't happen I know - but surely the A.400 is a cheaper and more practical option for work within the States?

Arthur

[HighFlyer21]

It won't happen I know - but surely the A.400 is a cheaper and more practical option for work within the States?

Arthur

I've heard various North American (Canadian?) voices pilot A400s in training missions in the UK. Wouldn't surprise me if they are interested in them.

[scottoz8]

It won't happen I know - but surely the A.400 is a cheaper and more practical option for work within the States?

Arthur

there is not a hope in hell of the Yanks using the A400, Boeing etc ,the Congress etc would have a fit !!! I may be wrong but wasn't the Airbus chosen for the AFR role ?? look what happened next !!!The Americans unless there is NO alternative will always buy local