Not at all. That in no way contradicts my statements. In FACT it more says that money WILL be taken away from further C-17 procurement for KC-X procurement if & when the DOD can pull its head out of its rear & the USAF AMC can begin procurement of KC-X.

we can play your silly word games all day or we can get back to the topic

would the money for those extra C-17s be better used on something else like airliners or moving EAGL along?

The A330 or A350 are too big (more importantly have INSUFFICIENT capacity for their size

but before we get back on topic, a quick little aside 🙂

the ‘booms on the ground’ argument always struck me as amusing

either their services will be required (in which they will be, you know, IN THE AIR) or they won’t be required (in which case it doesn’t matter where you park them)

in either case, ‘booms on the ground’ doesn’t matter

booms in the air is what matters and with its longer range and longer endurance, the KC-30 gives you more time in the air for the same time on the ground

We end up either with super product like the Raptor or Virginia that we can’t afford in sufficient numbers, or a severely compromised product like the Hornet. The C-17 is kinda like the Hornet.

i don’t know i would go that far

the C-17 is fine for what it is

the problem comes when people don’t realize its limitations and try to reduce all transport problems to ‘# of C-17s required’ and don’t even consider that ‘maybe the C-17 isn’t the best tool for every job’

Who keeps trying to justify killing C-5M so they can order another huge batch of C-17s?

um, wake up, that is what the whole debate about C-5M is about

do we continue it or do we drop it and buy a boatload more C-17s

maybe you missed when the gao released a whole (seriously flawed) report on this entire subject?

how about Gen. Arthur Lichte, the commander of USAF Air Mobility Command?

I think we’ve passed the window to (modernize C-5A aircraft), because they will be too old, and we won’t get much payback out of them…. if we can’t modernize the C-5s, we have to get more C-17s. It’s our only alternative to meet our nation’s airlift needs.

there’s also the upcoming air mobility study that will address this

not to mention all the people on here (Distiller) who would be perfectly happy to either kill it or severely truncated it so we could buy more C-17s

Yes it is but ZERO money FROM the C-5M has gone TO the C-17.

YET

not YET

but they are trying their hardest to get their grubby little paws on it

It is coming from taxes. :rolleyes:

as does practically all money the government spends, thank you mr genius

now, moving on to what matters, the government brings in a certain amount of tax revenue and then has to decide where it goes

if they send so many billion here, they cannot spend that over there

by funding the C-17, they’re taking it from some other program

alternatively, if they didn’t fund the C-17, where would the money go? (certainly not back to the taxpayers)

what’s easiest and what they’re doing for now is taking it from KC-X

(due in no small part to continued airlift shortfall for which the C-17 is the ONLY aircraft currently in production for the US military that fills the need)

last i checked the 777 and A330 are both in production

the C-5M program is running, and if we don’t do that, those frames will have to be retired, leading to a massive deficit in airlift capability which can only be solved by . . . buying more C-17s of course :rolleyes:

DOES NOT mean it will continue to do so indefinitely.

just like the copyright on mickey mouse MIGHT be allowed to expire instead of retroactively extending copyrights yet another 15 years :rolleyes:

the latest ‘rumor’ is that they want to get ANOTHER 60

then they’ll be satisfied

yeah right

ZERO money FROM the KC-X has gone TO the C-17.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/09/afa-08-boeing-gets-c17-bounce.html

General Norton Schwartz tossed a very subtle blank check to Boeing in his press conference yesterday.

Schwartz, a former C-17 pilot himself, said he prefers to hand-off active production of airlifters to tankers.

By inference, Schwartz could mean that C-17 production continues until active production of tankers begins.

If the recent history of the KC-X contract is any guide, it could still be many, many years before a hand-off is possible, especially if active production means full-rate production

care to reconsider your position?

you can play all the semantic games you want, the point is, we cannot afford both the C-17 and KC-X at the same time, so while C-17 continues, KC-X cannot happen

I say the TacAAR requirement is probably better satisfied with a pure tanker version of the P-8 that is on the production line right now.

after the Rand study showed the 737 was too small to be effective . . .

It does not take money away from KC-X.

that is where it’s coming from right now

of course they’re also trying to tap C-5M and EAGL

Boeing is on a rampage, hunting for any program it can crush and suck the life juices out of 😉

You can argue all day long about the optimum number, which is ultimately set by non-USAF, but Army requirements (like 3 Stryker BCT deploy/sustain within 24hrs – or whatever you want to have).

SEE! LOOK! THIS IS EXACTLY THE GARBAGE I’M TALKING ABOUT!

somehow we’ve jumped from ‘what is the proper composition and size of the fleet to accomplish the mission’ to ‘how many C-17s would it take’

it’s as if all other alternatives have ceased to exist and all air transport problems have been reduced to ‘number of C-17s required’

it’s this kind of insular, close-minded thinking i’m trying to change

It is important to keep it in continous low-rate production, regardless if it costs a little more.

when low-rate production is $3billion/year, then NO

they need to use that money for other parts of the transport fleet (KC-X, C5-M, EAGL, whatever)

Btw, I’m not against the C-5M, just saying keep it down to two squadrons (or overall 40/45 machines) to satisfy the few demands the C-17 can’t handle.

when the C-5 flies, it is more efficient than the C-17

it is a better way to move large amounts of material large distances because it is a true strategic airlifter, unlike the C-17

don’t believe me? listen to Gen. John W. Handy, the commander of US Transportation Command and Air Mobility Command

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2004/January%202004/0104galaxy.aspx

However, the C-5, he said, “is an airplane whose value is dramatically underappreciated, I think, outside Air Mobility Command and TRANSCOM.” Sometimes, Handy said, “it’s not just the outsize and oversize that drives that requirement.”

even just for regular missions he values the capabilities of the C-5

Because the C-5M takes money away from other programmes, not the other way round.

:rolleyes:

And in the current situation there will be no new airlift programme, like the EAGLE

the ‘current situation’ being continued production of C-17 far beyond our needs, you are correct

until C-17 is killed, nothing else can live

BTW: The new issue of AVWEEK says the US pays $200 a copy for a C-17, foreign list price is $220…a lot of money, but in the days of $30 million biz-jets my outlook may be skewed.
Anyway, what’s the cost of a A340, 777, 747 or A380?
In other words, I’d guess a C-17 is not that much more expensive considering the capabilities it has.

tough to say as they don’t advertise what they actually sell them for

there is the list price, but they always offer a substantial discount

as near as i can tell, an A330 ACTUAL price is ~$120mill and a 777 actual is ~$200mill

if you have better information, feel free to post it

that said, even if the acquisition cost was the same or slightly higher, the lifecycle costs would be far lower as it can move more pallets at one time (less crew cost) and use less gas doing it

NO money going to the C-17 is coming from ANY other airlift program.

then pray tell why they keep trying to justify killing C-5M so they can order another huge batch of C-17s?

last i checked, C-5M is an airlift program

and yes, the money is coming from somewhere. it’s not coming out of thin air

right now the plan appears to be to put the KC-X on hold and use the money allocated for that for C-17

and then if we end up with 300+ C-17, people will say there is no justification for EAGLS

Boeing is NOT lobbying to extend C-17 production at the expense of KC-X. Boeing has spent MORE money lobbying for KC-X than to extend C-17 production.

um ok, poor phrasing

OF COURSE Boeing isn’t intentionally lobbying to extend C-17 at the expense of KC-X, HOWEVER, that IS the net effect. As long as the USAF keep ordering C-17s, they will NOT order KC-X. They simply can’t afford it

(of course maybe they realize they have no shot at KC-X so they ARE intentionally trying to kill off that program 😉 )

The minimum cost increase to redesign the Ford because of this being thrown around… mind you… minimum.

Is $600 million.

Decrease C-17 order from 15 to 12

done 😀

?
most of what i’m proposing is using airframes the USAF either ALREADY HAS or is ALREADY PLANNING TO GET

C-27J – well on it’s way
C-130 – check
C-130XL/A400M – only saw a niche role for this anyways
C-17 – check
KC-X – in competition
additional airliner freighters – probably the only somewhat significant change
EAGL – in planning stages

see, the USAF is basically already getting the right mix of aircraft

the problem is proportions

THAT is not how your initial post presents it though.

wellll, that is what i said in my first post

tactical: continue C-130J and C-27J and investigate possible C-130XL/A400M

pallet/aeromedical: get KC-X already! and possibly supplement with commercial freighters like 777 or 747 (with appropriate militarization and self-defense suites)

strategic: get moving with EAGL

. . . [C-17] should expect a long, fruitful life in USAF service

the C-17 is hogging so much money it’s choking off KC-X and putting EAGL well on the back burner (possibly permanently)

this is a mistake, the sooner KC-X and EAGL can be brought forward, the better

if EAGL gets killed so we can buy 150 more C-17s it would be a travesty

The C-17 is doing no such thing.

that money has to come from somewhere, and the easiest is to just keep deferring KC-X

Boeing is possibly being penny-wise pound-foolish here. If they keep lobbying to extend C-17 production at the expense of KC-X, they may be forced to eventually close the 767 line 😀

The C-17 is most definitely competing with the C-5. If I had confidence EAGLS was coming, this wouldn’t be a problem. But I have seen ZERO movement on EAGLS which makes the C-5/C-5M program all the more important

The US can’t afford NOT to get a mixed fleet

NOBODY is saying any differently

i’ve seen a lot of comments that indicate differently

there’s a lot of love for the C-17 “we need 500 C-17s!!!1′ and the like

there’s also been a lot of hostility to getting dedicated pallet haulers (‘they can’t land in small dirt strip and unload while under fire’) and anything larger than a C-17 (“C-17 is all we need”, “C-5 is useless outside moving 2 pieces of equipment that don’t fit in a C-17”, “EAGL can’t do the same tactical-type landings a C-17 can do thus it’s worthless”)

NOBODY is saying any differently. Again the ISSUE is how you presented your argument which rather than comming off as a HONEST attempt at explaining (what I THINK you are trying to) that MORE C-17s is not the best solution to our airlift needs.

um, ok, i’m sorry i confused everyone and failed to properly communicate my message

The C-17 is an important PART of a well-rounded fleet. The problem comes when you try to make it the WHOLE fleet

If your first post had said that, I’d agree with you.

so, um, can you agree with me now?

(and besides, that is what i was saying in the first post, apparently not very successfully since no one got it :confused:)

You missed my point…the thing that makes the C-17 so valuable is that it CAN fly into less equipped areas IF IT HAD TO.

The USAF may not want to risk its toys, but its nice to know if the situation demanded ops from less than a place the size of Gatwick, it could.

i don’t think we disagree

it’s an important capability to have

it’s just that we already have it covered, we have it more than covered, we have it obscenely over covered

the problem is if we’re going into a small place, you simply can’t pack in all the C-17s we have

we’ll have what, 205? 220? C-17s after this last order. that will more than saturate any small airfield

not all jobs require a military airlifter, for those jobs an airliner is superior
for those jobs the USAF SHOULD have and use an airliner

They do. Every time I deployed across the Atlantic or Pacific, it was in a charter. Why buy when you can rent…especially for “seasonal’ traffic?

because buying is cheaper than renting if you have enough traffic (and the USAF does)

because renting only works for flights planned in advance (all the medevacs seem to be done by C-17 even though an airliner would be so much more efficient)

because civilian pilots and civilian planes without self-defense suites are limited as to where they go