C-17 Production Restart

[bobthemonkey]

Talk from Paris that Boeing are in the very early stages of talking to single customer about a C17 restart.

Presume it’s only India who would have enough of a requirement and available funds to consider this. If it did happen however, I could see the RAF pushing for funding for a 1:1 recapitalisation of the fleet, given its 8 are some of the highest hour birds in the worldwide fleet.

Probably should have remembered to add the link!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935004659430604959

View: https://twitter.com/ShephardNews/status/1935004659430604959

 

[Colonial-Marine]

It would be interesting if it does happen. I'm not aware of an existing program for an eventual new USAF airlifter.

 

[apparition13]

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.

I think it would have made a superior land based common support aircraft on which to build AWACS, tankers, ELINT, and the rest of the C-135 derivatives. Superior because of it's ability to use unprepared runways. Better than the C-17B it's derived from because the narrower fuselage would be lighter and less draggy, increasing range and fuel load (since the wings could still carry the same weight), and the new fuselage would be perfectly capable of accommodating the workstations necessary for the EC- variants.

Talk from Paris that Boeing are in the very early stages of talking to single customer about a C17 restart.

Presume it’s only India who would have enough of a requirement and available funds to consider this. If it did happen however, I could see the RAF pushing for funding for a 1:1 recapitalisation of the fleet, given its 8 are some of the highest hour birds in the worldwide fleet.

Probably should have remembered to add the link!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935004659430604959

View: https://twitter.com/ShephardNews/status/1935004659430604959

Sheer idiocy to not keep the line producing. It was the only thing in its class in the West. Why you would stop production of something without a replacement in hand is something I'll never get*.

*See also: F-22, B-2, Ohio, Tico**, MBTs, etc. The Soviet practice made more sense than the Western one here.

**The original circa 1990 design for a flight 3 Burke could have worked in this role.

 

[Atomic Coyote]

Even if the production line is being reopened at the behest of India (or whoever), if it happens it'd be stupid for the USAF not to put in an order as well. Any C-17s they buy now could probably serve until the 2080s.

 

[yasotay]

9.8% chance this will happen. Especially when they find out how much a new C-17 will cost. Unless there is a market for ~50 aircraft I can't see Boeing wanting the fiscal risk.

 

[Scott Kenny]

9.8% chance this will happen. Especially when they find out how much a new C-17 will cost.

Yeah, I see a major case of sticker shock incoming. Hope someone gets the reaction on video, and times the price reveal for when someone is taking a big slurp of tea for one hell of a spit-take.

Unless there is a market for ~50 aircraft I can't see Boeing wanting the fiscal risk.

The oldest C-17s are from 1995, so are 30 years old now. What's the expected lifespan of a Mighty Mouse? ~50 years? Time to either reopen the production line or start designing the next airlifter.

There's ~52 outside the US and 222 in US service (plus one that's US but is assigned to the Strategic Airlift Capability Heavy Airlift Wing "outside the US"), it'd be worthwhile to pitch the idea past the USAF for replacement hulls. Plus I think you could pick up another ~50ish sales across the globe from countries that now have a large enough economy to want/need some C-17s.

 

[yasotay]

Yeah, I see a major case of sticker shock incoming. Hope someone gets the reaction on video, and times the price reveal for when someone is taking a big slurp of tea for one hell of a spit-take.



The oldest C-17s are from 1995, so are 30 years old now. What's the expected lifespan of a Mighty Mouse? ~50 years? Time to either reopen the production line or start designing the next airlifter.

There's ~52 outside the US and 222 in US service (plus one that's US but is assigned to the Strategic Airlift Capability Heavy Airlift Wing "outside the US"), it'd be worthwhile to pitch the idea past the USAF for replacement hulls. Plus I think you could pick up another ~50ish sales across the globe from countries that now have a large enough economy to want/need some C-17s.

Scott - who thought the B-52 would still be soldiering on? I can see new wing boxes, and new avionics and such, but a purpose built lifter is a very hard sell I think, especially in times of austerity.

 

[Foo Fighter]

With all that is going on around the world, it is too late to be faffing with a new aircraft for the timespan of NEED. Start replacement in the backgound but, sort out requirement for the next twenty years FIRST.

C-17 all the way, no need to test new, no need to retrain crews etc. A real win-win and they are needed with zero faffing around for ego trips.

Why oh why is the system so batt schitt crazy?

I know folks but, I sniffed the cork before writing this missive, pillock that I am.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Scott - who thought the B-52 would still be soldiering on? I can see new wing boxes, and new avionics and such, but a purpose built lifter is a very hard sell I think, especially in times of austerity.

A new wing box is very expensive to do. It's very nearly as much labor as building a whole new plane, between the disassembly and reassembly. Civilian side, needing a new wing box is a hull loss.

Same reason that the life-limiting component of the B-52 has been publicly identified as the upper wing skins. Replacing those means major disassembly, diving the tanks (wet wings, remember?) to drive rivets, and reassemble everything. (Not to mention that those wing skins have something like 37,000 airframe hours life expectancy)

 

[Moose]

I think the odds are better than that. India could be a big buyer, opportunities exist in the Pacific, and A400M hasn't made any deliveries in the Gulf. Not that I think the UAE or Saudis need a lot of strategic airlift, but they do love to spend. That said, it would certainly seem like a USAF order would integral to making it happen.

There's also some interesting opportunities in a restart. For example, Pratt's shopping a modernized PW2000 to Jetzero for their BWB. Would it fit on a C-17 (without a major redesign)?

The cost issue will be there, but Boeing wants to rebuild its book and reputation. Probably never a better time to get a good contract hammered out.

 

[zjz]

https://www.twz.com/air/boeing-in-talks-to-restart-c-17-production

 

[zjz]

I thought I read somewhere that the C-17's body is actually not very streamlined, and it is not very fuel efficient?

I understand that the fuseluge was sized to carry a M-1 tank, therefore it has a "bulge" .... would stretching the aircraft a little by making it more slender helps in cruise performance?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I thought I read somewhere that the C-17's body is actually not very streamlined, and it is not very fuel efficient?

I understand that the fuseluge was sized to carry a M-1 tank, therefore it has a "bulge" .... would stretching the aircraft a little by making it more slender helps in cruise performance?

Probably.

The challenge becomes, can the plane still carry as much load. For example, C-141Bs had the same cargo weight capacity as the shorter -A models, and C-130-30s have the same cargo weight capacity as their shorter cousins. (I assume that the greater fuselage weight is canceled out by the lower fuel weight needed)

The C-141Bs came about because the C-141As were running out of cargo volume before they were running out of cargo weight. I'm not aware of any such claims about the C-17.

 

[zjz]

Probably.

The challenge becomes, can the plane still carry as much load. For example, C-141Bs had the same cargo weight capacity as the shorter -A models, and C-130-30s have the same cargo weight capacity as their shorter cousins. (I assume that the greater fuselage weight is canceled out by the lower fuel weight needed)

The C-141Bs came about because the C-141As were running out of cargo volume before they were running out of cargo weight. I'm not aware of any such claims about the C-17.

I would think newer engines would help in increasing the max load .... and with certain non load bearing parts replaced with composites, together with a modest stretched in the fuseluge, all these would contribute to better performance .....

 

[Scott Kenny]

I would think newer engines would help in increasing the max load .... and with certain non load bearing parts replaced with composites, together with a modest stretched in the fuseluge, all these would contribute to better performance .....

That would be a not-insignificant redesign. Building new C-17As, or maybe a simple re-engined C-17M, would be easy and relatively cheap.

 

[Moose]

I thought I read somewhere that the C-17's body is actually not very streamlined, and it is not very fuel efficient?

I understand that the fuseluge was sized to carry a M-1 tank, therefore it has a "bulge" .... would stretching the aircraft a little by making it more slender helps in cruise performance?

Boeing pitched a narrow-fuselage C-17FE. Instead of carrying 2 rows of pallets, or an MBT, it could carry a single row, or a pair of Stryker-size vehicles. It never got much traction on the market.

 

[zjz]

Boeing pitched a narrow-fuselage C-17FE. Instead of carrying 2 rows of pallets, or an MBT, it could carry a single row, or a pair of Stryker-size vehicles. It never got much traction on the market.

I suppose the C-17FE has to be narrower to meet better fuel efficiency, with an eye to sell to freight companies .....

The C-17FE has a narrower fuseluge with no change in length .... what I am advocating is the keep the C-17A width, but do a modest stretch ......

But I am aware even a modest stretch requires several years of effort for certifications ....

 

[Foo Fighter]

Still, much faster than a clean sheet design.

 

[H_K]

Unless there is a market for ~50 aircraft I can't see Boeing wanting the fiscal risk.

There are some historical precedents for production restarts with fairly small order sizes. For example 25 C-160 Transall NGs were ordered in the 1970s, 5 years after the original order was completed.

This would be more of a 10 year gap (the last C-17 rolled off in late 2015). Probably all depends on whether Boeing kept the tooling and whether P&W can still make the engines easily (as they must still be supplying new remplacement parts for the 1,500 PW2000s still in service).

If more payload/range is desired, there might be ways to clean up the aerodynamics (e.g. new winglets) and reduce empty weight with more modern components without a massive R&D investment (e.g. new digital avionics, maybe increased composite usage for a few structural parts or exterior skins etc).

 

[yasotay]

@H_K - I certainly agree it is feasible. I do not know when changes to an aircraft go from minor to major changes, but I have to think that changes to structure and aerodynamics would likely not be considered "minor." I do think that the R&D and testing would be reduced but not non-existent. Besides Boeing needs the money...
No doubt P&W would want to build new space to start manufacturing new PW2000, as I suspect that that space is used for newer engines. I do not think they keep extra space for engine lines, "just in case."
Of course if there is a chance of real money, then it might be possible.

 

[Ravinoff]

There's one thing and one thing only I want from any program to make upgraded C-17s: make a gunship out of it already. Bet you could fit a 155 M777 variant on an AC-17, maybe an XM913 for 50mm Supershot as an upgrade from the Bofors. And obviously a GAU-13/A "Son of Avenger" to replace the 25mm.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Tico

No, the Ticonderogas are at end of life, and their design is obsolete, they don't offer much additional capability over existing Guided Missile Destroyers (perhaps because they were originally designated as Guided Missile Destroyers) aside from greater magazine depth.

Burkes should never have been built, they were compromised by the belief that hull size was directly correlated with cost (in spite of the fact that combat system was a significant proportion of ship cost), they should have put Tico combat systems (albeit with some of the improvements of SPY-1D) on a new larger hull with the passive protection that the Burke was designed around.

 

[apparition13]

No, the Ticonderogas are at end of life, and their design is obsolete, they don't offer much additional capability over existing Guided Missile Destroyers (perhaps because they were originally designated as Guided Missile Destroyers) aside from greater magazine depth.

Burkes should never have been built, they were compromised by the belief that hull size was directly correlated with cost (in spite of the fact that combat system was a significant proportion of ship cost), they should have put Tico combat systems (albeit with some of the improvements of SPY-1D) on a new larger hull with the passive protection that the Burke was designed around.

The point I'm making isn't that Ticos are awesome and we should still be building them. It's that their production was stopped without a replacement being in production. It's been over thirty years and there still isn't a replacement in production. There are plenty of things that could have or should have been built (CGBL, Burke flight III 1980s design, COEA designs, the Zumwalt derived cruiser) but none of them were, and continuing to build Ticos would have been better than the nothing we got. Now with the Ticos it isn't as pressing since the main thing you're losing with Burkes is flag facilities and C and C, unlike B-2s, F-22s, and Ohios where it means you have an entire class of critical capability you can't produce should the need arise.

Which is my issue with stopping C-17 production, because it means there are no aircraft being built anywhere that can meet it's performance, and if you need that performance quickly you can't have it. With tanks there's at least the option of the in production South Korean K2, with strategic airlifters there's nothing.

Capability is also why I prefer the C-17B (and FE for the support role), since it adds unprepared field capability which vastly expands the types utility, especially in the Pacific.

 

[WatcherZero]

Doesnt matter if you have a unique capability if no one wants to buy it. The US made it clear it wasn't interested in any more and Boeing had to scrabble to sell the White Tails it produced at the end of the run here and there even at a discount (took three years after the production line was shut down to sell the last airframe).

 

[Moose]

Doesnt matter if you have a unique capability if no one wants to buy it. The US made it clear it wasn't interested in any more and Boeing had to scrabble to sell the White Tails it produced at the end of the run here and there even at a discount (took three years after the production line was shut down to sell the last airframe).

If they're floating trial balloons, it suggests they see the potential for enough demand. As much as they need every dollar coming in that they can get, this makes no economic sense for Boeing unless there's a good number of orders.

Things have also changed substantially since the closure of the line. Austerity spending dominated the early 2010s in Europe, today they're (slowly) increasing defense spending. The anticipated flood Gulf orders for A400M hasn't really happened, and since we know it's not due to fiscal restraint we may speculate that money could be there for Boeing if their aircraft returns to production. Japan's experience bringing C-2 to production seems to have cooled them on the idea of a larger domestic design, but they still want a larger aircraft. India and Australia are both candidates to expand their fleets if can find room in their budgets. South Korea has made noises about wanting a large air lifter and not wanting Y-20 to be the only option.

Then there's USAF; AMC has beat the everliving pee outta their fleet. There's talk of specific airframes hitting their 2030 flight hours in 2015, by today those aircraft aren't going to be in great shape. There was supposed to be a next-generation program by now, that was part of the rationale for stopping purchases, but other priorities have pushed that firmly into out years. At best we could see a C-Z version of KC-Z, if KC-Z happens, next decade but that's unlikely to have C-17's full range of capabilities. So a mildly updated Globemaster starts to make a lot of sense.

 

[Sferrin]

9.8% chance this will happen. Especially when they find out how much a new C-17 will cost. Unless there is a market for ~50 aircraft I can't see Boeing wanting the fiscal risk.

Any need or possibility of a C-141B stretch?

 

[Sferrin]

If they're floating trial balloons, it suggests they see the potential for enough demand. As much as they need every dollar coming in that they can get, this makes no economic sense for Boeing unless there's a good number of orders.

Things have also changed substantially since the closure of the line. Austerity spending dominated the early 2010s in Europe, today they're (slowly) increasing defense spending. The anticipated flood Gulf orders for A400M hasn't really happened, and since we know it's not due to fiscal restraint we may speculate that money could be there for Boeing if their aircraft returns to production. Japan's experience bringing C-2 to production seems to have cooled them on the idea of a larger domestic design, but they still want a larger aircraft. India and Australia are both candidates to expand their fleets if can find room in their budgets. South Korea has made noises about wanting a large air lifter and not wanting Y-20 to be the only option.

Then there's USAF; AMC has beat the everliving pee outta their fleet. There's talk of specific airframes hitting their 2030 flight hours in 2015, by today those aircraft aren't going to be in great shape. There was supposed to be a next-generation program by now, that was part of the rationale for stopping purchases, but other priorities have pushed that firmly into out years. At best we could see a C-Z version of KC-Z, if KC-Z happens, next decade but that's unlikely to have C-17's full range of capabilities. So a mildly updated Globemaster starts to make a lot of sense.

Like the additional C-5s Lockheed built. . .

 

[Scott Kenny]

Any need or possibility of a C-141B stretch?

I dunno.

The C-141B stretch was because the -As were running out of volume in the cargo bay before they hit max cargo weight. I don't know that the C-17s are in such a situation. Certainly haven't heard anything about that being an issue, but I haven't been listening to much USAF cargo hauler chatter specifically, either.

That said, the C-17 is kinda chunky so has poor fuel economy. Stretching the fuselage may improve that.

 

[BlackBat242]

Things have also changed substantially since the closure of the line.

Starting with the sale of the assembly facilities and land of the former McDonnell-Douglas Long Beach, California manufacturing plant after the departure of the last C-17 in November 2015.

Boeing would have to set up a new assembly line somewhere else, and hire or expand a work-force to build the C-17s.

 

[Sferrin]

Starting with the sale of the assembly facilities and land of the former McDonnell-Douglas Long Beach, California manufacturing plant after the departure of the last C-17 in November 2015.

Boeing would have to set up a new assembly line somewhere else, and hire or expand a work-force to build the C-17s.

So. . .not happening.

 

[BlackBat242]

So. . .not happening.

Not likely - of course if they get enough firm, binding orders (not "interest" or "discussions") then they likely would free up production space at their existing facilities - assuming they can reproduce (or kept) appropriate tooling, jigs, etc within a reasonable time-frame and at a cost customers are willing to bear.

It would NOT be cheap - or even just "moderately expensive".

 

[Sferrin]

Not likely - of course if they get enough firm, binding orders (not "interest" or "discussions") then they likely would free up production space at their existing facilities - assuming they can reproduce (or kept) appropriate tooling, jigs, etc within a reasonable time-frame and at a cost customers are willing to bear.

It would NOT be cheap - or even just "moderately expensive".

At this point I don't know that it would be any easier than trying to make "new" B-52s. Hell, they can't even get new engines on the existing aircraft in that case.

 

[Moose]

At this point I don't know that it would be any easier than trying to make "new" B-52s. Hell, they can't even get new engines on the existing aircraft in that case.

The location issue is not insignificant but is overcome regularly by programs which set up second site production. Boeing's own 787 is assembled on 2 different coasts, Airbus assembles the sane aircraft on multiple continents, etc. Hell the company which designed much of C-17's production tooling, ATT, is still around and still brags about their C-17 work at trade shows. The challenge is there, but it is not in the same ballpark of headaches as BuFF's refit program.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I believe the setup issues can be managed and the demand IS there so, organised properly even with a few upgrades and a stretch, this is doable.

Without breaking the bank of Lalalalalala land etc.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Isn't there a mostly-unused Boeing Military production site in Wichita?

 

[WatcherZero]

If they're floating trial balloons, it suggests they see the potential for enough demand. As much as they need every dollar coming in that they can get, this makes no economic sense for Boeing unless there's a good number of orders.

Things have also changed substantially since the closure of the line...

Which is meaningless in regards the decision to shut down the production line. They couldn't keep producing planes they couldn't keep the production line running for another decade in the hope that eventually someone would buy them again, they ran the production line for another year without firm orders as they were talking to three interested buyers and only just managed complete the sale of those tails after a considerable period in storage. Even if the conditions today have changed as the fleet is a decade older and examples are aging out, it doesn't make up for and justify continued production during the intervening period where they were unwanted.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Boing really need the income. Given a little incentive, other nations could be persuaded to chip in with orders. They are very fine aircraft and there is no realistic alternative out there. Certainly nothing like as capable.
Would the RAF really baulk at a realistic price? With the need that is demonstrably exstant?

 

[James1978]

Isn't there a mostly-unused Boeing Military production site in Wichita?

Kinda-sorta. Boeing spun off the Wichita Division in 2005 and it became part of Spirit AeroSystems. Spirit build 737 fuselages and 787 fuselage sections there. Boeing is in the process of reacquiring Spirit and should finish the process this year.

Going off of memory here, but I recall that when C-17 production was winding down, Boeing said that if there had been enough orders to keep the line going, they'd have moved the line out of Long Beach to somewhere else. But I don't recall them saying where.

How much floor space is available in Wichita is a good question. Does Boeing have the space in Seattle to reopen the C-17 line there?

 

[Moose]

Which is meaningless in regards the decision to shut down the production line. They couldn't keep producing planes they couldn't keep the production line running for another decade in the hope that eventually someone would buy them again, they ran the production line for another year without firm orders as they were talking to three interested buyers and only just managed complete the sale of those tails after a considerable period in storage. Even if the conditions today have changed as the fleet is a decade older and examples are aging out, it doesn't make up for and justify continued production during the intervening period where they were unwanted.

At no point did I suggest keeping the line open without orders would have been wise or even workable. I'm simply pointing out that the situation today could lead to a decision to re-start.

 

[Moose]

How much floor space is available in Wichita is a good question. Does Boeing have the space in Seattle to reopen the C-17 line there?

Space yes, building no. Plant 2 was demolished, much of the footprint is now a very large parking lot. The option to rebuild on the site is there, but it would have to be part of a long-range plan for projects beyond C-17. And you have to convince the board to stop crapping on Seattle.

Renton and Everett likely don't have enough space unless BCA has another major disaster. Boeing South Carolina shares it's runways with a C-17 base, but it's also the only 787 line active right now so they'd need to expand their footprint.