RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's

[KevinB]

Congress funded the program to X# airframes to begin with, as Boeing didn’t want to front the cost of tooling a plant that was for a limited number of aircraft. Now it’s all coming back to bite them.

DoD guaranteed a certain number of airframes with Congressional support, but as I understand that it didn’t give the USG anything more than. Boeing was free to close the line when no more orders occurred, and from everything I can see is free to open the line again (on their own dime) should they see a case to do so.

 

[Spencer100]

DoD guaranteed a certain number of airframes with Congressional support, but as I understand that it didn’t give the USG anything more than. Boeing was free to close the line when no more orders occurred, and from everything I can see is free to open the line again (on their own dime) should they see a case to do so.

Its been a moment, I think the US Government was billed and paid the line closing costs. And some tooling was retained (spares and future need etc.) Not as much as the F-22 but some. I think you would need approval. But why would they not approve? As long its not China or Russia?

 

[KevinB]

Its been a moment, I think the US Government was billed and paid the line closing costs. And some tooling was retained (spares and future need etc.) Not as much as the F-22 but some. I think you would need approval. But why would they not approve? As long its not China or Russia?

Not according to Boeing.

Best article I can find on it.

Boeing to close C-17 line three months earlier than anticipated

In the latest blow to Long Beach’s aerospace industry, Boeing Co. said Monday that it is closing the production line for its C-17 military cargo plane three months earlier than its initial es…

www.ocregister.com

 

[calculus]

Here's a bit more on this. Apparently there are 5 countries (at least) that have expressed an interest in the C17:

5 Countries including India want Boeing to restart the C-17 Production line – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org

Without an obvious successor, it seems to me there might be a pretty good business case for restarting production.

 

[calculus]

And this article from a few years ago suggests the USAF might look at potentially adding another 74 to their fleet:

Could the Air Force restart the C-17 production line?

The same analysis that laid out the Air Force's 386-squadron goal may also point to getting more C-17s and getting rid of a couple C-130 squadrons.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Quirky]

Does Kuwait really use the two frames they have, or are they just flying Garages for the Royal Family's exoctic Car collection?
We just bought 5 Civilian Airframes from them so......

Not to mention a sizeable collection of low-hour legacy F-18s

 

[KevinB]

And this article from a few years ago suggests the USAF might look at potentially adding another 74 to their fleet:

Could the Air Force restart the C-17 production line?

The same analysis that laid out the Air Force's 386-squadron goal may also point to getting more C-17s and getting rid of a couple C-130 squadrons.

www.defensenews.com

GWOT put hours on the airframes way above any projections, as well as a significantly higher number of take off and landings from rough fields than was ever forecast.

I understand that the current ‘requirement’ for C-17’s for the USAF to support operations is IVO of 300, and that would mean that the plus up of 74 number is fairly accurate, but doesn’t account for replacing some of the more worn members of the fleet.

Now I didn’t really follow the C-5 upgrade program and if that is/was successful it would mean that some of the stress for long haul heavy lift was reduced for the C-17’s, but given the lack of C-5 relative flying hours, I’m guessing it didn’t hit the expectations.

 

[Rifleman62]

....thoughts are Canadian Airforce should approach West Jet, Air Canada....

Can we afford to always be late, missing mission equipment?

 

[captloadie]

If I were Boeing, I wouldn't open the line again. I would be designing the next generation of Heavy lift, waiting for the current C17 fleet to begin Txing. Then I would go to congress with my hands out, saying there is a new, better design ready to come off the drawing board, and all that is needed is a injection of taxpayer money to start production.

Next thing you know, the main operators are lining up to purchase the new model, and second/third tier users start scooping up the used models around the world for civilian use, a la AN-124 model. Concurrently, Boeing works out a deal with an arms length subsidiary to do refurbs of these used models, and provide ongoing support.

 

[childs56]

If I were Boeing, I wouldn't open the line again. I would be designing the next generation of Heavy lift, waiting for the current C17 fleet to begin Txing. Then I would go to congress with my hands out, saying there is a new, better design ready to come off the drawing board, and all that is needed is a injection of taxpayer money to start production.

Next thing you know, the main operators are lining up to purchase the new model, and second/third tier users start scooping up the used models around the world for civilian use, a la AN-124 model. Concurrently, Boeing works out a deal with an arms length subsidiary to do refurbs of these used models, and provide ongoing support.

The problem with that is they will loose money if they don't open the line up again.
Countries that want and need more C17s will go elsewhere.

I wish De Havilland Canada had something going on that we could buy.

 

[YZT580]

If I were Boeing, I wouldn't open the line again. I would be designing the next generation of Heavy lift, waiting for the current C17 fleet to begin Txing. Then I would go to congress with my hands out, saying there is a new, better design ready to come off the drawing board, and all that is needed is a injection of taxpayer money to start production.

Next thing you know, the main operators are lining up to purchase the new model, and second/third tier users start scooping up the used models around the world for civilian use, a la AN-124 model. Concurrently, Boeing works out a deal with an arms length subsidiary to do refurbs of these used models, and provide ongoing support.

their batting average on new-builds isn't that great lately. Also, with the exception possibly of instrumentation what is there on the existing design that needs re-designing. The very fact that countries are asking for it says that Douglas found the sweet spot just as they did with the DC3.

 

[lenaitch]

The problem with that is they will loose money if they don't open the line up again.
Countries that want and need more C17s will go elsewhere.

I wish De Havilland Canada had something going on that we could buy.

Where will they go? Is there any western aircraft in production that is similar to the C-17.

 

[dimsum]

Where will they go? Is there any western aircraft in production that is similar to the C-17.

The closest is the A400M, and even then, it’s not that similar.

 

[childs56]

Where will they go? Is there any western aircraft in production that is similar to the C-17.

I am sure Airbus will step up. Possibly some deal with Ukriane to build some transport.

 

[KevinB]

If I were Boeing, I wouldn't open the line again. I would be designing the next generation of Heavy lift, waiting for the current C17 fleet to begin Txing. Then I would go to congress with my hands out, saying there is a new, better design ready to come off the drawing board, and all that is needed is a injection of taxpayer money to start production.

Boeing started work on that design before the C-17 line even thought about a shut down. The issue is the C-17 is in a sweet spot of being both a large transport as well as a tactical rough field aircraft.

You can go larger like the C-5, but then you loose the rough field capability. You can go smaller, but you loose the ability to move items like the M1A2.

Next thing you know, the main operators are lining up to purchase the new model, and second/third tier users start scooping up the used models around the world for civilian use, a la AN-124 model. Concurrently, Boeing works out a deal with an arms length subsidiary to do refurbs of these used models, and provide ongoing support.

I just don’t see that happening.

 

[lenaitch]

I am sure Airbus will step up. Possibly some deal with Ukriane to build some transport.

No doubt, afterat least a decade of development. I was thinking of an existing product vs. re-opening production of an existing, known and certified aircraft.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If I were Boeing, I wouldn't open the line again. I would be designing the next generation of Heavy lift, waiting for the current C17 fleet to begin Txing. Then I would go to congress with my hands out, saying there is a new, better design ready to come off the drawing board, and all that is needed is a injection of taxpayer money to start production.

Next thing you know, the main operators are lining up to purchase the new model, and second/third tier users start scooping up the used models around the world for civilian use, a la AN-124 model. Concurrently, Boeing works out a deal with an arms length subsidiary to do refurbs of these used models, and provide ongoing support.

With Boeing's current track record, they be better off upgrading the C-17 design and making new ones. That saves a ton of development monies and helps restore their tattered reputation, not to mention bring in some cashflow and maintain skillsets/train the next generation of aircraft builders.

 

[Spencer100]

With Boeing's current track record, they be better off upgrading the C-17 design and making new ones. That saves a ton of development monies and helps restore their tattered reputation, not to mention bring in some cashflow and maintain skillsets/train the next generation of aircraft builders.

Boeing's sweet spot is upgrading, re-winging, or zero timing the current fleet until the US puts real new program of record out to replace with a new design.

If I was management that's what I would do at this time. Plus its all hand on deck to right the airliner side of the biz at this time

And Childs54......Canada can no longer build a new sheet design aircraft again. DHC is not even building anything they are thinking and planning about it though.....

Airbus would have to look long and hard before they ever think of designing a new cargolifter, after the A400. They will never get a return on investment on that.

 

[suffolkowner]

Fire up the AN-124 line again!

 

[Spencer100]

Fire up the AN-124 line again!

Before or after all the UXO is removed..........