Posted on 09/21/2006 9:46:35 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
WASHINGTON - Funding for 10 new Boeing C-17 aircraft will be included in the annual defense spending bill, congressional lawmakers said Thursday, a move the will keep the production line open - for now - for the transport plane built in California and Missouri.The $2.1 billion in funds secured by Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., would bring the Air Force inventory of the aircraft to 191 planes. New aircraft would be purchased to replace aging transport planes that have been overused.
The C-17 program was in jeopardy last year after the Defense Department recommended buying no more aircraft beyond the 180 planned. With the last of the planes set for delivery in 2008, production on the line would have started to wind down at the end of the year.
"This is a huge victory for our military, our nation and Missouri," said Talent, chairman of the Senate's seapower subcommittee, which oversees the C-17 program. "There are few systems more important to our armed forces than this aircraft."
The C-17 is used to transport military troops, vehicles and supplies to points around the world.
Funds to support the additional planes were included in a conference report that House and Senate lawmakers agreed to late Thursday. Both chambers are expected to pass the bill before the end of the month.
The new funding will keep the production line in St. Louis open until at least 2008. Talent's overall strategy is to secure funding in future years for additional aircraft to extend the line even longer.
The government watchdog group Project On Government Oversight has called Talent's provision an example of wasteful spending. The group says Congress is forcing the military to purchase weapons it doesn't want.
While most of the C-17 is built in Long Beach, Calif., several components are assembled at Boeing's St. Louis-based defense company. Production of the aircraft supports about 1,800 jobs in Missouri and generates $776 million in economic activity in the state.
Earlier this year, Talent secured $227.5 million for the purchase of an additional C-17 aircraft in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act.
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
C-17 shop in LB is about 1.5 miles from my house. w00t.
Keep building this great aircraft....love watch them coming in for landing at the Long Beach Airport!
We need lots more capacity in Air Lift!
With all respects to Rep Talent, this wasn't a "victory" for the US military or the nation. It was a "victory" for his Congressional district.
Furthermore, Congress has needlessly driven up the cost of the C-17 fleet by insisting the Air Force base them in places the Air Force said they didn't want them based (Hawaii, Alaska, and Mississippi). It costs millions in military dollars to put those aircraft there because the Air Force has to spend money for infrastructure assocated with the C-17. Sen Stevens (R-Alaska), Sen Inouye (D-Hawaii) were just playing pork barrel politics with a strategic airlifter that has no business being stationed there.
Isn't the A-400 more of an aircraft in the class of the C-130(an advancement over it) than the C-17???
The C-17 is a great plane, but the fact they are made in Long Beach has also "needlessly driven up their cost".
Since government contracts and the profit you make is are based on the "Cost", no wonder Boeing wants to build them in one of the highest cost locations in the US.
Then they get the engines built in Connecticut and then have them overhauled in San Francisco. Not exactly a recipe for saving money.
No wonder big planes are 1/2 a billion dollars, now.
Boeing never designed the C-17 nor did they decide where to build it. It was a McDonnel-Douglas plane that Boeing inherited after the merger in 1997. The building where DC-9/MD-80/717 line was located and land where it sits on have been sold to developers. Once the C-17 line shuts down, it will also be redeveloped.
Supposedly the A-400 is much faster than most turboprops and not much slower than turbofan powered military transport planes. If they acutally get it to work, it will offer near jet speeds but C-130 type operations close to combat zones while carrying larger equipment.
Technical SpecificationsDimensionsOverall Length 45.1 mCargo Box Dimensions
Wing Span 42.4 m
Overall Height 14.7 m
Length (excluding ramp) 17.71 mRamp Length 5.40 mWeights (2.25g)
Width 4.00 m
Height 3.85 m
Height (aft of wing) 4.00 m
Max. Take-off Weight 136.5 tPerformance
Max. Landing Weight 120 t
Max. Payload 37 t
Total Internal Fuel 47.7 t
Cruise Speed Range Mach 0.68 - 0.72
Max. Operating Speed 300 kt CAS
Initial Cruise Altitude at MTOW 29 000 ft
Max. Operating Altitude - Normal ops 37 000 ft
Max. Operating Altitude - Special ops 40 000 ft
Range at Max. Payload * 1700 nm
Range at 30-tonne Payload * 2400 nm
Range at 20-tonne Payload * 3450 nm
Ferry Range * 4750 nm
Tactical Take-Off Distance ** 1150 m
Tactical Landing Distance ** 680 m
Since I've been a McDonnell Douglas stockholder since 1974, I know this. The Production of the C-17 could have been moved at any point in the last 10 years and would have saved the taxpayers Billions, but where is the incentive to save taxpayers Billions?
Moving an already established production line isn't cheap.
Typical ignorance. The C-17 is not a weapon, it is a transport. And I can't see any military planner, not wanting a robust fleet of transports to keep the supply lines open, especially in the environment of dwindling overseas bases from which to draw on.
Personally, considering the number of hotspots around the world, and the need to get men and meterial to those spots quickly, we should probably have twice as many transports.
While I agree that the need for a large and able fleet of military transports will be needed for the forseeable future, the fact that the Air Force wanted to use the money for future tanker aircraft leads me to believe that this money wasn't well spent.
Lots of the missions that our Air Force flies are completely reliant on the ability to refuel in midair.
Adding more fleet capacity may or may not be as necessary as maintaining midair refueling capabilities.
The old Douglas plant in Long Beach is a perfect place to build these. I don't know where you get your information.
JSL
That's why the couldn't make a competitive commercial plane there. It was just TOO perfect.
Even so it would have cheaper to move it than leave it there. What is the average home price or engineering wage in Long Beach vs. Wichita or St. Louis or Dallas? The problem was there was ZERO incentive to move it.
The higher your costs, the more profit you can make because the profit percentage is fixed... at least until the money dries up
I see why everyone hates Rummy. The goal of a leaner, meaner American fighting force is an uphill battle and you step on a lot of toes if you state the obvious.
Are you just a troll or do you really believe that the DC aircraft were not competitive? Of course Boeing makes a better product but there are still lots of DC jets flying. If it was such a poor aircraft company, then why did Boeing buy them?
Good, we need lots more than 10 extra though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.