Boeing could be preparing to darken the skies with fresh production of the mammoth C-17 Globemaster III. Ten years after the Long Beach, California, factory quit building C-17s with the 279th airframe, Boeing has revealed it is negotiating with at least one customer for orders that would restart the assembly line.
According to an article published by online military news source The War Zone, Boeing’s aptly named VP and general manager of global services-government services, Turbo Sjogren, confirmed at the Paris Air Show that “early infancy” talks were underway with an unnamed country. “It is a very extraordinary effort to do,” he told Shephard Defense at the show, but the interest is “reflective of the utility of the aircraft.”
The C-17 is capable of carrying 100,000 pounds of cargo on 4,500-nautical-mile missions. It is famous for its short-field capability with heavy loads, including an Abrams tank, and can operate to and from unimproved runways as short as 3,500 feet and 90 feet wide.
Besides the U.S. Air Force, C-17 operators include Australia, Canada, India, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The War Zone reports that Japan is considering acquiring a C-17, but it is expected that any sale would involve transferring one of 222 existing USAF aircraft.
It will be like VW restarting production of rear engined beetles… If there is demand design a new, modern aeroplane.
I suppose Boeing (which shuttered and sold the C17 factory in California) thinks it will be able to grandfather a plane on the existing certificates for the C17, just as it so successfully grandfathered certificates on the new 737.
What’s the difference between A400M and C17?
??
Compared to C-5?
(But hey! may be many DC-10 noses in the SW deserts - what is their remaining structural life? <g,d,r>
The C-17 uses a DC-10 nose.)
It’s too bad they can’t restart the 757 line. What a great airplane that was.
The C17 will likely be kiling bugs, while the 400 has issues.
What are the versions of the A400? (‘Issues’ means editions, not problems.)
‘Killing bugs’ means nothing - not understandable.
Thanks.
Worse was USAF not keeping jigs for C-141, cheapskates.
I recall Canada wanted to buy some. (Eventually bought C-17 which does have large fuselage.)
Interesting reports that Bristol and Lockheed dug into making a frankenplane by mating Belfast’s larger fuselage with wing of C-141. But not done, perhaps moved on to C-5.
(I was in a Belfast when it picked up the Supermarine Stranrauer from the ramp outside Pacific Western’s hanger at YVR. Impressive compared to the Herc I worked with, had seating on a mezzanine level behind flight deck which itself was large with ample space for extra crew/navigator/radio operator. (The Strannie biplane is now in a museum in England, it had served the BC coast for decades after ocean patrol duty in 1930s and 1040s.)
Today jigs are not needed as much, because of precision milling and fastener hole location.
The B767’s trailing edge devices were assembled without jigs.
jjbaker said: “The C17 will likely be kiling bugs, while the 400 has issues.”
And your reply:
No; in this context ‘issues’ means ‘problems’.
Could mean ironing out minor problems (as in debugging software) or it could mean that the C-17 will be in service while the A400 is still dealing with more significant problems.
I apologize. Things which kill bugs are a common term from the automotive world. Bugs end up dead on vehicles in motion, whereas vehicles in the shop, undergoing repairs are usually accumulating no impact bugs. A driving vehicle is therefore killing bugs.
Ofc a new C17 would likely have some period of operational issues, errors and necessary adjustments, but some feeling tells me the A400 will not be competitive.
The C17 first flew in 1991 during a time when Boeing was the envy of the world and the pride of corporate U.S. and defense. That all changed in 1997 when MD merged with Boeing and became a stock market greed monkey ran by executives instead of engineers. Then came Muilenburg and Hamilton who should be in prison - if not for the candy-ass DOJ - for the MAX disasters.
Given those facts, the “unnamed country” should be leery of this contractual purchase.
And today, Planeco?
Are you extrapolating?
How is the A400M working out?
Had early problems, as did other aircraft projects.
Like Canada’s new ASW helicopter.
A derivative of S-92 but with FBW, Sikorsky botched the software. Fatal accident because a maneuvering scenario not thought of, ongoing low availability.