Posted on 05/23/2007 12:25:00 PM PDT by Freeport
Boeing claims it is closer than ever to launching the long-awaited BC-17 commercial derivative of its C-17 strategic transport, but says the growing gap in guaranteed production beyond delivery of the final contracted aircraft in 2009 makes this, and any further potential study derivatives, increasingly expensive to develop.
“We have several customers with money that have given us requests for proposals,” says C-17 vice president and programme manager Dave Bowman, who adds: “I’ve never received RFPs before.”
Although the company declines to identify the interested groups, Bowman says “this is the closest we’ve ever been to launching this programme, and we have got actual proposals in hand from customers.
“We’re looking forward to launching the programme, which could initially be for between 30 and 60 aircraft,” says Bowman, who adds the potential market “could be upwards of 100 aircraft.”
(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...
It depends on whether you want to go to the expense of redesigning and testing lots of parts. In many cases, changing the alloys used is a lot cheaper and doesn't require new tooling.
- It can handle oversize and outsize cargo - something not every airliner converted to a cargo aircraft can do.
- It can land with a full payload of many tons on shoter and unimproved fields, making it capable of delivering things like heavy equipment to places where a B-747 converted to a cargo aircraft cannot do. Same for takeoff.
But, it is damned expensive aircraft.
Although your point makes sense the answer is the aircraft manufactures do want the expense, and they're not really pressured to stay with "off the shelf" technology.
It also goes to the fact that even if it was the best aircraft ever made, you'll never see it built again due to everybody wanting the latest and greatest. Especially with foreign sales.
many eons ago my then girlfriend was on the flight test program for this bird. Yes I did marry her!
She is honest, back then when they talked about canceling the C-17, she told me if the airplane is a toad I will tell you, she then said this isn't a toad, this is a darn good aircraft!
She has some very rare air to air shots she took herself, man I need to get them digitized....
The latest I heard is that Gen Mosely wants to retire all the C-5A models and not screw with the Avionics Mod Program (AMP) or the RERP program - but that means more C-17s.
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money.
- It can land with a full payload of many tons on shoter and unimproved fields, making it capable of delivering things like heavy equipment to places where a B-747 converted to a cargo aircraft cannot do. Same for takeoff.
But, it is damned expensive aircraft.
I wonder why a freight airline would need 30 new build C-17's. Why not buy used ones from the USAF. The USAF could then get some brand new C-17's and renew the fleet.
A Luftwaffe interceptor pilot said attacking that was like biting a porcupine on fire.
So would it be better to buy new C-17's or refurbish the existing C-5A's? The preliminary reports, from the study of the retired C-5A that has been completely torn down to study how the fleet is aging and how much life the airframes have left, indicate that the C-5A's have 70% of their structural life left. For each C-5A that is recapitalized, there would be the equivalent of two new C-17's in payload capacity but with better range. The RERP program is supposed to keep the C-5's running till at least 2040 and probably 2050.
Moreover, the C-5A models have more structural problems than they anticipated as well.
The "70% service life" quote has been around since 1997, and is often repeated (ad nausea), but it is kind of like a phrase that people hear at a meeting and just keep using over and over again.
The A models have far less than 70% structural life left, but I am not sure what.
I am not the expert, nor do I have the latest info - but I think what the Air Force is looking for is to retire all the A's, and continue to work with the B's, while asking for still more C-17s.
And I want a pony.
I am not sure what they will get. The problem with retiring the A-models is that some of them are in the Guard - and I am sure you know that retiring Guard aircraft in a Congressman's district is akin to them thinking you are trying to rape their wives.
That wouldn't be cost effective to the Air Force. The airlines would demand a Used Car price, but then the Air Force would have to turn around and pay Boeing sticker price.
The Air Force just threw out 40,000 good people so it could make a down payment (if that) on Modernization.
They don't have the bucks to do that used for new C-17s deal - and Pelosi's and Reid's Congress ain't gonna give it to them either.
The only real increases in DoD dollars are now going to the Army.
The B-17s and B-24s did a great job leveling Nazi Germany. The Germans were still clearing the debris in 1953 and later. That was the last war we actually won. Since then, the RATs have prevented any such victories and yet they still get elected. It’s a mystery to us Vets why so many American voters have become such leftist wimps. Are the Boomers really our kids? Hard for me to accept.
Amazing a/c....heh heh heh.
I have this framed print on my wall. Best C-17 pic.
BC-17? A bomber version of the C-17 Globemaster? I guess the B-52s couldn’t last forever.
Hey, I’ve got an idea, there could also be a passenger version too, with a spiral staircase down to a lower level lounge. Maybe make a really wacky fuselage cross section. Put some engines in there that love to crap out ... oh wait, it’s already been tried .... ;)
I didn't know that but fwiw, if we hadn't destroyed them, Slick probably would have given them to the Chinese in return for another $100K under the table to the DNC.
There already is a sort of a passenger version as there's a VIP seating package that can be installed. Here's an example.
Had to have all the extra seats for all the MSM tag alongs .... LOL!
Some of the A’s will be modified. Even if we buy more C-17s the lift is desperately needed.
The problem with C-17s as commercial aircraft is they cruise at .74 mach. Too slow for the Nat tracks, really. So is the C-5.
The elephant in the room concerning argument for the C-5 is, they are so incredibly unreliable. The ‘M’ mod so glowingly spoken of by some members of this forum is supposed to bring the reliability from an abysmal 65 percent to an only slightly less horrendous 75 percent.
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.