IAF clears proposal to buy three C 17; Boeing says only one plane left to sell

The Economic Times, India ^ | 17 Aug, 2015 | Manu Pubby

[Spktyr]

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/01/airforce_aircraft_budget_011010w/

It’s behind a paywall, though.

[FreedomPoster]

Not going to pay. Is there any justification for the number, or just a “this is how many we need” statement?

Again, 10:1 is just absurd on the face of it.

[Spktyr]

I believe it has to do with cubic capacity. A single C-5 can transport 2 Abrams tanks plus a bunch of other stuff, a C-17 can only carry one and not so much extra. Remember, the C-17 is between the C-130 and the C-5 in size.

[Freeport]

Their subcontractors who make major parts of that aircraft have not made any new parts in over 5 years.

Let alone all the trained personnel that have already hit the road.

To restart production would need a substantial order and a lead time of over a year to restart. Onesies, twosies does not a production run make.

Boeing would probably need 30 to 50 new orders to make it financially viable to start up production again.

[FreedomPoster]

Yes, I’ve been on all of the above, I understand. Heck, I remember playing with load floor planning paper dolls when my dad was at staff school, many, many moons ago. How many AH-1s can you cram into a C-141? Heh.

Now, those numbers you quote argue for much less than a 10:1 replacement ratio. 10:1 sounds like something a Boeing military sales rep would come up with, is all I’m saying.

[Spktyr]

I also have my doubts about it, but even if you go on ‘how many tanks + associated gear can it carry’ as a metric, you’re still looking at a ~3:1 ratio of C-17s to every C-5 to be retired. Under that metric, we bought enough C-17s to replace 6 C-5s (since that declaration) and we’re going to be retiring 21 of them.