C-17B Globemaster

M

masqqqq

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
26 March 2009
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I'm looking for information, technical data, 3-line drawings, pictures etc about projects based on C-17 Globemaster III ( for example C-17B ).
 
Re: C-17 Globemaster projects

In 1992, McDonnell Douglas Corp. was talking with British jet-engine builder Rolls-Royce plc about putting Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan engines on the Douglas-built C-17


Source: Luftwaffen-Forum, 01-1993, pages 44-45
 

Attachments

  • MDD_C17_RB211_535_engines_Luftwaffen-Forum_01_1993_page44_810x695.png
    MDD_C17_RB211_535_engines_Luftwaffen-Forum_01_1993_page44_810x695.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 1,444
From AFA:

Two C-17s drop-launched a pair of ballistic target missiles near Wake Island in the Pacific Ocean, supporting a recent Missile Defense Agency test. "High-altitude, heavy weight airdrop is something we're doing a lot of here at Edwards, supporting not only MDA, but NASA with the Orion capsule drops that we've been doing," 418th Flight Test Squadron pilot Capt. Stephen Koether from Edwards AFB, Calif., said in a Dec. 7 release. Edwards pilots initially deployed a Short-Range Air-Launch Target (SRALT) from the C-17's cargo bay, which was detected, tracked, and intercepted by a ground-launched Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile. The second Globemaster launched a larger Extended Medium-Range Ballistic Missile (EMRBM) minutes later, testing defensive systems' ability to discriminate targets through debris from the first shot. The THAAD system on Wake successfully intercepted the first shot, and although the AEGIS destroyer USS John Paul Jones was able to track the EMRBM, its SM-3 missile failed to engage, according to an MDA release. The Oct. 31 test evaluated both land- and sea-based US missile defense. MDA is investigating the missile interceptor failure.
 
Model of Boeing C-17B

Another potential derivative was the Boeing C-17B. If you ever attended an airlift convention or airshow, you might have even seen a model of the upgraded Globemaster III. The C-17B was pitched as a way to allow landings at truly austere fields in locations where the “A” model couldn’t go. The C-17B featured a center-truck gear, self-deflating tires and double-slotted flaps to allow landing on even shorter distances. This variant was proposed a few times by Boeing in an attempt to extend the production line, the last time publicly in 2008. The “B” model never caught on though. The C-17 was already an expensive plane to operate and by 2008, congress started to reign in the massive defense budget that would have been necessary to fund this new variant. The War on Terror showed off the capabilities of the C-17 but it also exemplified that performance beyond its current capabilities were not required. Most missions did not require landing on a short or unimproved field. Even in poor nations like Afghanistan, most of the cargo could be delivered to a few established fields and transloaded to smaller aircraft like C-130s and/or convoyed to the final destination.
Click to expand...

Source:
http://www.avgeekery.com/2015314three-c-17-derivatives-that-never-took-off/
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/gallery/view.html?b_bbs_id=10040&pn=5&num=45696
 

Attachments

  • BEMIL081_45696_1.jpg
    BEMIL081_45696_1.jpg
    467.5 KB · Views: 547
  • BEMIL081_45696_0.jpg
    BEMIL081_45696_0.jpg
    131 KB · Views: 421
  • BEMIL081_45696_2.jpg
    BEMIL081_45696_2.jpg
    32.4 KB · Views: 403
Triton said:
Model of Boeing C-17B

Another potential derivative was the Boeing C-17B. If you ever attended an airlift convention or airshow, you might have even seen a model of the upgraded Globemaster III. The C-17B was pitched as a way to allow landings at truly austere fields in locations where the “A” model couldn’t go. The C-17B featured a center-truck gear, self-deflating tires and double-slotted flaps to allow landing on even shorter distances. This variant was proposed a few times by Boeing in an attempt to extend the production line, the last time publicly in 2008. The “B” model never caught on though. The C-17 was already an expensive plane to operate and by 2008, congress started to reign in the massive defense budget that would have been necessary to fund this new variant. The War on Terror showed off the capabilities of the C-17 but it also exemplified that performance beyond its current capabilities were not required. Most missions did not require landing on a short or unimproved field. Even in poor nations like Afghanistan, most of the cargo could be delivered to a few established fields and transloaded to smaller aircraft like C-130s and/or convoyed to the final destination.
Click to expand...

Source:
www.avgeekery.com

Three types of C-17 That Never Made It Off The Drawing Board

The C-17 was a successful design. Here are 3 modifications to the C-17 that never made it off the drawing board.
www.avgeekery.com

¹Ì À°±ºÀ» »ó´ë·Î Á¦¾ÈµÇ°í ÀÖ´Â C-17B ¼ö¼Û±â

¹Ì À°±ºÀ» »ó´ë·Î Á¦¾ÈµÇ°í ÀÖ´Â C-17B ¼ö¼Û±â
bemil.chosun.com
Click to expand...

How would the C-17B differed from the C-17A?
 
Thanks! I still need to order the book though, I've been needing to do so for some time. I will order it as soon as possible.
 
Adventurer104 said:
flateric said:
Wyvern said:
How would the C-17B differed from the C-17A?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
4 in narrower fuselage?
to lighten or some other purpose?
Click to expand...

Not 4 inches, 4 feet (~1.2 meters). That's a pretty dramatic shrink, which would eliminate the ability to haul heavy tanks, but I guess would still accomodate Stryker (and maybe Bradley?). Would certainly be quite a weight and fuel savings, though. Combined with the higher flotation landing gear, it could make the C-17B C-17FE more capable in unprepared runways.

Edit: Realized that those slides likely refer to the FE, not the B.
 
Last edited:
Given the damage to C-130's operating out of "austere" landing locations, I suspect the USAF was loathe to risk a capitol asset to an unseen rock. I would like to poke them in the eye for that, but I can understand the rational.
 
Question....Could the C-17A be stretched like the C-141A was stretched to make the C-141B? Seems like a cheap way to gain some capability at a more reasonable cost than new builds. I dont know if the C-17 cubes out before exceeding weight lifting limits...
 
TomS said:
Adventurer104 said:
flateric said:
Wyvern said:
How would the C-17B differed from the C-17A?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
4 in narrower fuselage?
to lighten or some other purpose?
Click to expand...

Not 4 inches, 4 feet (~1.2 meters). That's a pretty dramatic shrink, which would eliminate the ability to haul heavy tanks, but I guess would still accomodate Stryker (and maybe Bradley?). Would certainly be quite a weight and fuel savings, though. Combined with the higher flotation landing gear, it could make the C-17B C-17FE more capable in unprepared runways.

Edit: Realized that those slides likely refer to the FE, not the B.
Click to expand...
It’s all very Future Combat System vibe-y, the Army and Shinseki really believed they could move a light-mech Brigade in 96 hours and they needed all the lift assets possible. There are some FCS slides floating around showing the need for intra-theater planes.
 
alejandrogrossi said:
circle-5 said:
McDonnell Douglas EC-17 tanker, flying command post and electronic warfare platform:
Click to expand...
circle-5
Question
If any wants the EC-17 tanker (with boom an with pods in the wing) MCD can build it?
Click to expand...
Sad to say, Circle-5 passed away a few years ago.....

As to your question, don't see Boeing offering that option. They'll try to sell you converted 767s instead.

Mark
 
alejandrogrossi said:
circle-5 said:
McDonnell Douglas EC-17 tanker, flying command post and electronic warfare platform:
Click to expand...
circle-5
Question
If any wants the EC-17 tanker (with boom an with pods in the wing) MCD can build it?
Click to expand...

So, obviously, McDonnell Douglas hasn't existed as a separate company in ages and I think the name hasn't even been used since ~2001 or so (I've lost track). It's all Boeing now. Also, Boeing stopped making C-17s in 2015 and then sold the plant to real estate developers in 2019. So not only has the horse left the barn, the barn is being torn down and turned into condos.
 
Last edited:
Mark Nankivil said:
alejandrogrossi said:
circle-5 said:
McDonnell Douglas EC-17 tanker, flying command post and electronic warfare platform:
Click to expand...
circle-5
Question
If any wants the EC-17 tanker (with boom an with pods in the wing) MCD can build it?
Click to expand...
Sad to say, Circle-5 passed away a few years ago.....

As to your question, don't see Boeing offering that option. They'll try to sell you converted 767s instead.

Mark
Click to expand...
My bad
Thanks for you ansewer
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom