Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/14/2005 5:35:33 AM EDT
From today's Boeing News Clips:



180 C-17s Enough, Air Force Says
Los Angeles Times 12/14/05
author: Bloomberg
Copyright 2005 The Los Angeles Times

The Air Force doesn't want to expand its fleet of C-17 transport jets beyond the 180 it currently operates or has on order, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said Tuesday.

The Air Force accepts the findings of a Defense Department review of military mobility that concluded the Air Force has adequate transport aircraft and the Navy has enough fast sealift vessels with the current planned inventory to deploy ground units in a timely manner, Wynne said.

"Right now, we accept the outcome of the study," Wynne said at a Pentagon briefing. "We are feeling not uncomfortable" with the current planned transport aircraft inventory of 500 C-130s, 180 C-17s and 112 C-5s.

Wynne's remarks are a setback for Chicago-based Boeing Co., which has lobbied to sell Congress as many as 40 more C-17s, nicknamed the Globemaster III. Boeing said its Long Beach assembly plant may close after 2008, when the last C-17 is delivered. The company delivered the 139th of the four-engine jet this week.

Lawmakers have pressed the Air Force to buy more C-17s.

Each C-17 costs $200 million. The plant where the C-17 Globemaster III is assembled employs about 6,500 workers."



That's not good news for the C-17 line and the people who work it.

Merlin

Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:05:35 AM EDT
Yeah, but it's good for taxpayers, at least if they do have enough planes. US$200,000,000 (per plane!) will buy a lot of vehicle and body armor, with spare change left for ammunition.

If I recall correctly, list price on 747's is around US$100,000,000. They could buy two of those for every c-17 and go in style.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:13:36 AM EDT
Not to be a dick $200mil is a lot for a plane, if we dont need them we shouldnt waste money on them. Building planes simply to keep these people employed is pretty much welfare the way I see it.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:17:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 10:14:31 AM EDT by warlord]
Personally, for me, my opinion is that the USAF could use it, but the problem the USAF has other priorities that need to be addressed. NOw if the US Congress says, no problem you can get the planes and we will expand your budget appropriately to cover them, okay, but if the USAF accepts these new C17s, then the USAF has to cut their budget somewhere else. The USA Congress is micromanaging the USAF for political gains, which is not good.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:31:05 AM EDT
Say it ain't so!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 9:31:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merlin:
From today's Boeing News Clips:



180 C-17s Enough, Air Force Says
Los Angeles Times 12/14/05
author: Bloomberg
Copyright 2005 The Los Angeles Times

The Air Force doesn't want to expand its fleet of C-17 transport jets beyond the 180 it currently operates or has on order, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said Tuesday.

The Air Force accepts the findings of a Defense Department review of military mobility that concluded the Air Force has adequate transport aircraft and the Navy has enough fast sealift vessels with the current planned inventory to deploy ground units in a timely manner, Wynne said.

"Right now, we accept the outcome of the study," Wynne said at a Pentagon briefing. "We are feeling not uncomfortable" with the current planned transport aircraft inventory of 500 C-130s, 180 C-17s and 112 C-5s.

Wynne's remarks are a setback for Chicago-based Boeing Co., which has lobbied to sell Congress as many as 40 more C-17s, nicknamed the Globemaster III. Boeing said its Long Beach assembly plant may close after 2008, when the last C-17 is delivered. The company delivered the 139th of the four-engine jet this week.

Lawmakers have pressed the Air Force to buy more C-17s.

Each C-17 costs $200 million. The plant where the C-17 Globemaster III is assembled employs about 6,500 workers."



That's not good news for the C-17 line and the people who work it.

Merlin




I think the USAF is fiddling with the idea of using its upcoming-vaporware tanker program to fill in gaps. They are proposing a 777 that has cargo and refueling capability , and I'm sure it will also have some net-centric / signit ability too. "If" they can get it to work in a "timely" fashion it might be a dog that hunts.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 10:10:58 AM EDT
If the USAF has enough C-17s it isn't pushing its aircrews hard enough. We've had issues getting enough strat lift to deploy aviation brigades for OIF/OEF.
Top Top