sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7692 times:
For how long will Boeing keep the C17 line open? EU has no heavy lift wing on its own, leasing of An124 will work until these frames are worn out, none of them is exactly top modern or young.
Will there be a heavy lifter after the C17 is gone and the AN124 are retired? How would EU get a MBT outside of EU? The A400 wont do it, US is starting to shift from Europe to SE Asia. Would Boeing let EADS build C17s in Europe under licence and would EU nations be more willing to buy them if assembled here?
Anyway I was just thinking about India's C17 order, if the 787 and AI deal turns sour, there might be 10 C17s on the market with no taker.
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1990 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7690 times:
MBTs are usually shipped by sea. There are a few aircraft than can ship them, but it doesn't happen all that often. Still, probably a nice capability to have once in a while. OTOH, most people are looking towards smaller armored vehicles for most operations right now.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7677 times:
And UK, part of EU has a few C17s and NATO has 3. It is however a nice asset to have even for Europe, maybe not a huge fleet but about 10 that could be shared in a pool like NATO has. Maybe Antonov will come true with new An124s? Modern avionics and engines is all it needs really. GEnx and some modern systems off shelf.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7579 times:
I know Sweden used its slots to lift some APCs to Afghanistan, maybe not for a whole brigade but if you have to move a few heavy weapons fast the C17 has the capacity that the smaller aircraft don't. I think sadly Europe has got used to getting this done by the Americans over the years. One day maybe reality sets in and some regrets get aired. Q3 2014 is the EOL of C17 currently, there is still time to get one
But I was not only thinking about MBTs, evacuation or relief flights etc 2004 during the Tsunami there was a shortage of heavy lift in Europe. Just saying it would be good to have some of our own assets non dependent on others. But time to make up our minds are running out fast.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7276 times:
I think Boeing should licence the C17 to be built in EU, that way I am sure it would sell more frames, if not for military needs, EU has a lot of humanitarian relief flights. With all the stimulus getting thrown around, what would it cost to set up a FAL in France? Do a few C17 between the A400 runs..It could be called E17 No RR engines, PW 757 engines on it though.
larshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1216 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7158 times:
Quoting sweair (Thread starter): Will there be a heavy lifter after the C17 is gone and the AN124 are retired? How would EU get a MBT outside of EU? The A400 wont do it, US is starting to shift from Europe to SE Asia. Would Boeing let EADS build C17s in Europe under licence and would EU nations be more willing to buy them if assembled here?
The An-124 is far from dead, actually they are restarting the production. Moving the MBTs will be done by the 3 NATO C-17s most of EU is members of NATO anyways. Apart from MBTs everything else can use the A400M.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7124 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 5): I think Boeing should licence the C17 to be built in EU, that way I am sure it would sell more frames, if not for military needs, EU has a lot of humanitarian relief flights.
That would be up to the DOD, they own the plane and the tooling that makes the plane.
Humanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7082 times:
The DoD refuses to allow the civil use of the C-17. The FAA will not go forward with certifying the 'military' version of the C-17A for civil use utilizing operational data from the USAF for a 'standard airworthiness certificate' without the DoD stating that the use of the aircraft is in the "national interest". There have been two attempts on this course of action (one by Boeing) and both were rebuffed by the FAA due to the DoD's lack of cooperation.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 12715 posts, RR: 80 Reply 10, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6967 times:
Back in the 1990's, there was a proposal for a 'Westernised' AN-124, including US avionics - helping to reduce the originals rather large flight crew, RB.211-524 engines.
I thought then that it would have been a sensible investment for NATO, in this case European NATO nations/EU to buy say 8-10 of them, operating them in a similar manner to the NATO E-3 Sentry aircraft.
The RAF would still have got C-17's, that was seen as a stop gap prior to what became from 2003 the A400M, then the world changed in 2001 and RAF transport taskings eventually doubled the C-17 fleet and turned them from leased, to owned assets.
Still, they would have used these NATO AN-124(W) from time to time, along with others, handy for Afghanistan air bridge, would have been very useful for disaster relief - in the wake of the 2004 Tsunami nations like Sweden with a large number of it's citizens affected would have found them very useful, for example.
Today, the pan European heavy lift unit could have had say 9 AN-124(W) and those 3 C-17's.
Recently, the 8th and final RAF C-17 was handed over, it was only ordered a few months ago, the USAF allowed the RAF a production place, delaying one of theirs.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6766 times:
When the C17 is gone, A400 is the biggest new build on the market? How long will this work? How long will the current C17 frames last? Some C5s have begun to be retired. Maybe airlift is too expensive in tomorrows high cost fuel environment?
Freighters would wear out faster than say the 707 tankers and bombers?
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11711 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6541 times:
I doubt the EU will buy any C-17s. They like relying on the USAF for heavy strategic airlift. But with budget cuts on both sides of the pond, and US politicians less willing to provide for EU military needs, the USAF C-17 EU airlift may become a thing of the past. The USAF has more C-17s than they want, so perhaps we can sell some to France, Germany, or Italy?
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3249 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6526 times:
Quoting rwessel (Reply 12): Operationally, to move a meaningful number? I'm not actually aware of any.
Define meaningful? If you have none & SECDEF says you need some number greater than 0 in 24 hrs..... (and he has...)
A fair bit of armor was airlifted to Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident...
And more recently there was a massive airlift of MRAPS to Afghanistan & Iraq to counter the IED threat... Not certain but I believe this was largest vehicle/armor airlift in history. Used a lot of AN124 & C-5 missions.... (re: MBTs, yes I know)
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6393 times:
So in 40 years how many C17s will fly? Will there be a new freighter built? Maybe a BWB freighter is the way to go, it would have a wider cargo space, and cargo needs less comfort than passengers and needs no emergency exits or windows.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26721 posts, RR: 83 Reply 16, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6325 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 15): So in 40 years how many C17s will fly?
Depends on the need. Could be some. Could be all (minus any hull losses).
Quoting sweair (Reply 15): Will there be a new freighter built?
Not sure. Depends on if China replaces the Soviet Union as the "Big Bad" that drives the need for a large heavy airlift capability.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6202 times:
Sweden shares the 3 NATO C17s and I think most people in the air force are very pleased with its capability, I think they have flown a few MBTs to Afghanistan, the 62t Leopard2.. Its a very nice assets to have sometimes, you can get stuff very near the battle as well. A C5 cant go places the C17 can.
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5727 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 16): Quoting sweair (Reply 15):
Will there be a new freighter built?
Not sure. Depends on if China replaces the Soviet Union as the "Big Bad" that drives the need for a large heavy airlift capability.
With military airplanes, especially freight movers, lasting as long as they do now, I doubt the Air Force has even given thought to a new airlifter. There was talk some time back about a new version of the C-17, the C-17B I believe, but it never came to anything. I've seen nothing showing any Air Force interest in replacing the C-5 either.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5689 times:
The first C17er has been scrapped so they wont live forever. Airlift might be a thing of the past? 30 years from now the last C5s should have retired and many of the current C17s too. What will be used to airlift assets then?
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 711 posts, RR: 11 Reply 20, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5682 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 19): The first C17er has been scrapped so they wont live forever. Airlift might be a thing of the past? 30 years from now the last C5s should have retired and many of the current C17s too. What will be used to airlift assets then?
A new cargo plane? Either the US will keep building C-17's at a low rate to keep the line open (basically buying enough to makeup for whatever shortfall there is in international sales) or they will close it down and either reopen it when they need new cargo planes or design a new cargo plane 5 or 10 or 15 years down the road.
It is not like it would be rocket science to design a new cargo plane and put it into production if they needed to so long as you write reasonable requirements for it (ie don't try to make it do the C-17 and C-130's jobs which are distinctly different).
I would imagine that the congressional interest for the C-17 will manage to keep the production line alive after getting some study that suggest just building a few of them a year is cheaper than shutting it down and restarting it in 10 years when new airframes are needed. If not, as a I said, they will just design and build a new something or other when it is needed.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5666 times:
Long Beach will be closed and the buildings sold. 2014 is the current last schedule. Maybe the tools can be saved or at least the design and drawings.
It was a long time since a military freighter was designed now, skills and knowledge get lost with time. See how hard it is for Airbus to do the A400. I don't think A C5 could be done from scratch any longer, it would take too much time and money and a steep learning curve.
Military freighters are complicated, MD had a lot of problems with the C17 in the start.
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 711 posts, RR: 11 Reply 22, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5616 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 21): Long Beach will be closed and the buildings sold. 2014 is the current last schedule. Maybe the tools can be saved or at least the design and drawings.
It was a long time since a military freighter was designed now, skills and knowledge get lost with time. See how hard it is for Airbus to do the A400. I don't think A C5 could be done from scratch any longer, it would take too much time and money and a steep learning curve.
Military freighters are complicated, MD had a lot of problems with the C17 in the start.
Everything is complicated but people acting as if the end of the C-17 line means the USAF will never acquire another large cargo aircraft are mistaken. If it is needed it will get built somewhere. And the complication is relative which is why I said what I said. Airbus has struggled with the A400M mostly because it has a funky hybrid role. It uses very high power turbo-props to try to keep operating cost down and make it a C-130 replacement but it has strategic roles like the C-17.
A lot of the A400M's (And C-17 when it started) problems were self-inflicted by requirements. The actual task of building a large cargo aircraft is just not that complicated. Where it gets messy is when you want certain short-field requirements, rough landing requirements and to make it a refueling aircraft. If someone told Boeing or Airbus to build me a flying box with a capacity of X and a range of Y that can land on a reasonably long runway they could put it together in short order. Not a thing on that kind of aircraft really needs to be new. Time and expense will get longer if you want to add more capability but nothing about building a military cargo plane would be new really. Most of the skills are pretty related to building commercial cargo jets, which both Airbus and Boeing do.
The price goes up as you add to that but I don't see any reason a new cargo plane could not be built if needed. It is not like tearing down ones nuclear weapons establishment or stopping building fighter planes and trying to get back into it. You can heavily leverage your civilian aircraft base to build the thing.
Galaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 586 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5532 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 19): he first C17er has been scrapped so they wont live forever
If you are referring to 87-0025; which was a testbed aircraft that far exceeded its designed life; then you are incorrect. Also, it was never a C-17er. True the production fleet won't last forever...nothing does, but they still have at least another 20 years for the oldest jets, 30-40 for the newer ones.
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
25 sweair: Frame lifetime must get lower with every war that they have to serve? I think the C17 fleet has been at hard work during the last 10 years. All disast
26 ebj1248650: Though there's no apparent interest in a C-5 replacement and the C-17s will go a long time before they need to be replaced, you have to wonder if Boei
27 sweair: I hope the BWB will replace the C5. Its doable, as both F117 and B2 are that kind of BWB aircraft. But very expensive. The lift you get in a BWB is ha
28 ZANL188: Very unlikely I think. AF doesn't fly airplanes that hard, even C-17s
29 Galaxy5007: Dude...I'm not going to argue my point on why this jet was retired again...The plane was never designed to be operational; it was designed as a testb
30 ZANL188: Well it sounds like you are arguing your point again. Face it, nobody designs a large production transport jet to only last 5 years - nobody. Maybe y
31 HawaiianHobo: Time to take a trip on the credibility train....Choo choo. http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRA...%2027%202012/FirstC-17Retires.aspx That took all of
32 Humanitarian: Excerpt from 2007 article: Full article: http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123045961 When T-1 went to the museum it had less than 3,80
33 sweair: If we have another decade with lots of conflicts and high utilization of the freighters wont that shorten the life span on the remaining fleet? Maybe
34 KC135TopBoom: 87-0025 was a test airplane, it was originally designated the YC-17, and its production number is T-1. In other words it was a pre-production airplan
35 ebj1248650: Correct me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't a static test airframe modified to look like a complete B-2 and then put on display at the Air Force Museum? I
36 Stitch: That is correct: B-2 test article (s/n AT-1000) is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1990 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1216 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined exactly 12 years ago today! 
, 12715 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
