C-17 Globemaster replacement?

P

pkcasimir

Member
FormerDirtDart said:
I stumbled onto a Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, that seems very pertinent to this discussion. As the title states, it addresses a number of directions in potential future mobility solutions.

One, is the C-17 Spiral Development (Payload & Range Expansion Program) , a long-range plan to modernize the aircraft, increasing the aircraft’s payload and extend its range. Part of that would include "...the fuselage would need to be
strengthened and extended to allow more payload...".

Strategic Mobility Innovation: Options and Oversight Issues
April 29, 2005
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32887.pdf
Click to expand...
A Congressional Research paper from 2005 is totally irrelevant. It expresses a 10 year old opinion from a Congressional source and is hardly the viewpoint of the USAF. I don't think a number of participants on this board have the foggiest idea as to how the US military procurement process works.
 
P

pkcasimir

Member
John Fedup said:
@ng...I recall seeing an article about Boeing planning to auction off some machinery used for C-17 production within the last month but I'll damned if I can remember where. If the tooling and jigs are being stored I assume this type of machinery can be replaced fairly easily should production need to be restarted.:)
Click to expand...
Let's be realistic here. The USAF plans no replacement for the C-17 until at least 2040. Do you really think they are going to build an airplane with by then a 50 year old design with 50 year old machinery?
 
P

pkcasimir

Member
John Fedup said:
I guess only the unique tooling and jigs were required to be saved. As the article states, the machinery can be re-tasked to produce other aircraft and for Boeing to put this expensive machinery into storage would not be cost effective. In the unlikely event C-17 production is resumed, Boeing would take the unique stuff out of storage and would either have to re-task other machinery needed or buy new machinery. I assume something similar was done for the F-22 line. Some the big expensive machinery was probably re-tasked for F-35 production.
Click to expand...
Please provide a verifiable source for your statement that the USAF required Boeing to store the "unique tooling" for the C-17 in case production would be resumed.

You are wrong about the F-35 production line using F-22 machinery. Only electronic information from the F-22 production line was retained. Several years ago, the USAF had a study initiated to determine what the cost would be to reconstitute the F-22 production line and build more F-22s. The cost proved to be totally prohibitive including the rebuilding of a production line for the F-22.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
pkcasimir said:
Please provide a verifiable source for your statement that the USAF required Boeing to store the "unique tooling" for the C-17 in case production would be resumed.

You are wrong about the F-35 production line using F-22 machinery. Only electronic information from the F-22 production line was retained. Several years ago, the USAF had a study initiated to determine what the cost would be to reconstitute the F-22 production line and build more F-22s. The cost proved to be totally prohibitive including the rebuilding of a production line for the F-22.
Click to expand...
With regards to what had to be saved for a possible re-start of the C-17, see ngatimozart's earlier post. You can nick-pick the details (his reference does not mention tooling and jigs) but clearly the USAF wanted some ability to do a re-start if necessary. As for machinery, this was not required to be saved which is why Boeing is able to put it up for auction. Some machinery could be viable for several decades. In any event, it is extremely unlikely the line would be re-started.

I doubt there is much public information about what exactly was required to be saved for a F-22 re-start. IIRC, the USAF wanted a production re-start for the F-22 for 5 years after the last jet.

As for cost, continuing F-22 production and adding some F-35 tech in future blocks might have ended up not costing as much as keeping the F-35. Fewer jets but better, mind you the USMC would be disappointed. The USN, maybe not so much. However, this is the wrong thread and the F-22 is buried deeper than the C-17.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Today's A400M tragedy must now make the USAF decision to keep open the possibility of a production re-start to be a reasonable idea given the A400M is the only "sort of" strategic lifter the West has right now.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top